Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340-359
JIM KNIGHT
AND MS
SUE GARNER
13 JUNE 2006
Q340 Mr Jones: I accept your area
of responsibility, but, surely, you as a department should be
liaising with the Scottish Executive. If you are saying that there
is a great relationship with the MoD then kids will move around
the system. It comes back to the point with which this inquiry
is concerned: what is best for the kids? If you are saying that
you have had no discussions at all with the Scottish Executive
about Service children I find it that quite disturbing. If you
do not know the answer say so. I accept that you are new to the
department, but I find it remarkable that there is no work with
the Scottish Executive on these kids, because inevitably they
will move around the country.
Jim Knight: In response to one
part of the question, I am not aware of those discussions. There
may be some discussions of which I am not aware, but you should
be clear as to where my responsibilities begin and end. This refers
back to some of the earlier discussion as to whether it is best
for an English department or the MoD to run education overseas.
Perhaps it reinforces the point that it might be better for the
MoD agency to be responsible for education overseas so it can
manage that relationship between Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland
as well as ourselves as an English department.
Mr Hamilton: I find this strange. I understand
your position about English authorities, and you have answered
that question. But there is a major problem. The devolution pact
does not involve the MoD having a UK remit. Scotland and Wales
are represented on this Committee but not Northern Ireland. I
find it strange that when our children go abroad from the United
Kingdom they do so under one umbrella but when they return they
fall under four different umbrellas. The obvious question is:
what dialogue is taking place between the authorities in England,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to try to get some good practice
transferred overseas and to work at the common problems that every
child and family will have on their return? I know you are new
to the job but from what you say that dialogue is not taking place.
It seems to me there is not a dialogue. The question is really
for the Education Minister. Does she have a dialogue with the
Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Education Ministers about
the needs of Armed Forces' children? I do not even know whether
that is happening. As part of this inquiry I would have thought
that that would be funnelled through the MoD.
Q341 Chairman: You are not aware
of any such dialogue?
Jim Knight: I am not aware of
a dialogue specific to Service children. Obviously, there are
children who move between Wales and England and England and Scotland
and Scotland and Wales. Children move around this country and
there is regular dialogue between education ministers in general
terms. They would face similar challenges with different curricula
and different educational arrangements between the various nations
that make up the United Kingdom. Many of those would have a very
strong cross-over to the sort of issues being talked about, but
the executive agency in respect of the education of Service children
would be the one that would specifically manage that relationship
and the discussions on the transfers of those children. It is
important that we have regard to every child and it is also important
that we have clarity over some of the structures.
Chairman: While you are focusing on this
Select Committee inquiry can you bear in mind that as our soldiers
serve in Afghanistan, Iraq and Northern Ireland one of the most
important things to them will be the education of their children?
That sort of dialogue must take place.
Q342 Mr Jones: I turn to something
that you might know something about given your experience as the
governor of a school with a large number of Service children.
We have received a complaint from a lot of schools in the UK.
I refer to your example where a large number of Service children
suddenly arrive at a school and there is pressure on the school
budget in that year. What has been put to us is that the money
should follow the children straight away. What thoughts, issues
or representations have been made to you by schools about the
pressures of suddenly a large number of Service children descending
on the school?
Jim Knight: Clearly, the working
group is mindful of this. When it was set up it was one of the
principal issues of concern, but when the funding arrangements
for schools were last consulted upon and put together some analyses
were made—I have a list of them with me now—of the
distribution of mobile pupils between authorities. I think that
the decision was rightly made that there was insufficient evidence
that authorities like Wiltshire, Essex and Hampshire had higher
levels of mobility than other authorities. When I look at the
statistics, in most cases they have lower levels of mobility.
Given that our funding relationship is between the department
and local authorities, it was not appropriate to increase the
amount of funding to those particular local authorities. It is
then up to the local authorities to decide how they then fund
the individual schools. There are some examples—I mentioned
Wiltshire earlier—where they are mindful of the problem
that some schools have with high turnover and they fund accordingly.
Q343 Mr Jones: I accept that if you
use bland statistics like these that could be the case, and I
accept that some London inner-city schools have huge turnovers
every year. But what I argue, and the schools argue to us, is
that this is slightly different because you do not have a drip-drip
over the year; in some cases you have 50-odd kids descending on
a certain school in one area. Not only has that school not planned
for it but because Service children move around not only are there
extra numbers but there is more pressure because of the nature
of some of these kids. More care is needed to deal with them in
terms of integrating them into the school. Is it not a bit simplistic
just to compare it on the basis of turnover?
Jim Knight: I think that it is
right for us as a department but it would be important for local
authorities where they have these concentrations to be mindful
of exactly the factor that you are speaking about. When I was
a governor in Warminster and the garrison turned over it had a
big effect on the school. There was a lot of disruption which
we as a governing body and the staff had to plan through very
carefully and have as good a relationship with the garrison as
we could to work it out, sending staff out to Germany and so on.
All of that comes at a cost. Local authorities should be sensitive
to that and fund schools accordingly.
Q344 Mr Jones: If I was a councillor
in Wiltshire and was told by a minister that I should be sensitive
to these issues that would be fine, but ultimately it comes down
to cost, not just in terms of being able to absorb it in one year
but the continuing additional costs. One can be as sensitive as
one likes but unless one has the cash is there not a case for
additional funding? One figure put to us was that there should
be an additional £220 per child specifically to take into
account that unique situation which some schools face?
Jim Knight: When I look at the
increases in funding of authorities that have taken place over
the past 10 years or so it is significantly more than £220.
They have received a lot of funding recently and, according to
local democracy, they then have the discretion to decide whether
or not to award it according to this or other needs.
Q345 Mr Jones: It is a good argument,
but the extra funding has gone to all schools including those
in my constituency. But my constituency does not have a garrison
which means that suddenly 30 kids, say, turn up at the beginning
of the school year. Is it not a little unfair on some of the garrison
towns to say that they have extra funding thanks to a Labour government
but they will have to spend it on the particular problem which
they face? Schools in my constituency will never face that situation,
because 50 kids will not suddenly turn up?
Jim Knight: But the local education
authority will distribute its funds according to a formula. It
can add weight in the formula for those schools with large concentrations
of Service children and that will allow those schools to make
the necessary provision.
Q346 Mr Jones: But that local authority
is facing additional funding and costs. If you add it to these
schools you have to take it away from somewhere else in that local
authority area. It faces particular circumstances which certainly
schools in my constituency will never face. Just to say that it
is the same as everywhere else is not the case, is it? Why should
a school in Wiltshire, for example, suffer because another school
has suddenly got an influx of kids because of a change of barracks,
for example?
Jim Knight: Wiltshire has had
a 37% increase worth over £1,000 per pupil over the past
nine years, and it has another 6.9% to come next year. It is then
up to the local authority to decide how to distribute that. In
Wiltshire's case it decides to distribute it so that those schools
with concentrations of Service children get more money. That local
decision means that those without those concentrations of Service
children benefit less from that increase in funding. That is their
decision.
Q347 Mr Jones: But that is a direct
result of government policy, ie people in the MoD services create
the problem and surely that should be taken into account. Why
should those schools be penalised because they happen to have
neighbouring schools with a large number of Service children?
This is a problem of any government's making because Service children
have to move around.
Jim Knight: But every local authority
has different practices that they bear in mind when deciding how
to distribute funds. Some might have a large turnover of children
for other reasons—for example, large migrations take place—and
others might have large numbers of children for whom English is
not their first language and they have to make provision accordingly.
Q348 Mr Jones: I accept all that.
But this is the result of the policy of government. We are moving
people around and they take their kids with them so, surely, the
money should go with them; there should be some recognition of
that in terms of those education authorities that are affected
by it?
Jim Knight: We shall be consulting
in the spring of next year for funding for the three years from
2008, so we shall be looking at it again. When it was last looked
at the decision was made that on the basis of the mobility figures
there was not a clear pattern that local authorities with concentrations
of Service children were being unduly disadvantaged. I accept
that in this case it may be unusual because it may arise as a
result of something that is directly to do the Government, but
they were not unduly disadvantaged and therefore there was not
a case to increase the amount of funding of those local authorities
over any other.
Q349 Mr Borrow: I can see the line
that you are trying to keep and I will not push you too far. Given
that there is to be a review next year and that in earlier statements
you made it clear that as far as you were concerned the lead responsibility
for Service children lay with the MoD, would it not be useful
in the discussions next year on the budget for 2008 onwards to
explore with the MoD the specific situation of children of service
families returning to the UK from overseas deployment, or going
back, and the problems that that causes? If the money to deal
with that mobility is not coming out of your pot perhaps it ought
to come out of an MoD pot which would go specifically with the
child as it is transferred from Germany or wherever and is linked
to the additional costs, on which this Committee has heard evidence,
involved in settling a child from a service family into a state
school in the UK after a period of education overseas. The specific
process has additional costs if it is to be done successfully.
Do you believe that it would be reasonable in those discussions
not simply to look at issues of mobility in the UK and say that,
for example, there is not more in Hampshire or Wiltshire than
the average and therefore they will not have any more money, but
look at the relationship with the MoD in this respect?
Jim Knight: I am sure that when
the Committee publishes its recommendations I will want to look
very closely at them and try to be as sympathetic as I can be.
Certainly, there are bound to be issues where we need to have
some discussion with the MoD. I have already suggested that there
may be ways in which we can improve the relationship with SCE
as an agency even further and continue the trend that has been
going on. That may be something to look at, but I will not fall
into any trap, which is perhaps the first mistake that a minister
can make, of making spending commitments on behalf of another
department.
Q350 Linda Gilroy: I want to follow
on from Mr Borrow's point and focus on the personalisation money
that is available. I think I am right in saying that it now amounts
to £1 billion over two years, which is very substantial.
With the degree of mobility that some children experience, if
that personalisation money is allocated through the local authority
how does that work with the SCE? Mr Borrow asked about looking
at whether there is a case for the personalisation money to track
the Service child. I asked some questions about that during the
course of the debate on the Education Bill. As to the question
whether personalisation money could follow the child—because
that is an issue for all of us—in the case of Service children
it could be absolutely crucial that there is the possibility,
where it is appropriate, of having some support attached to the
child throughout its education for which personalisation is designed
to help?
Jim Knight: Personalisation is
an exciting, evolving agenda. It does not necessarily mean individualisation,
so we would have to look carefully at the notion that money necessarily
follows children. It will mean significant changes to the curriculum
and involve the use of extended schools in terms of stretch and
catch-up, which would be particularly useful in this respect.
There may be circumstances, particularly where children may have
just transferred, in which one wants to look at what kind of catch-up
lessons through extended schools could be provided. Because of
those changes to the curriculum the SCE agency will undoubtedly
need to find some resources to deliver those changes. There will
be resource implications for us in England and anywhere where
that new curriculum is delivered. Changes like the 14 to 19 specialist
diplomas which are in the Education Bill will be particularly
challenging and interesting for those overseas schools to deliver
where we shall be offering a choice for every child to go down
the apprenticeship or specialist diploma route. They will be entitled
to a choice of 14 specialist diplomas, or they can go down the
GCSE A-level route. We do not envisage that it will be possible
to offer that range of choice from a single school in England.
If one is delivering education in Belize on behalf of SCE that
probably raises some challenges.
Q351 Chairman: We have heard what
you have said about educational authorities having to deal with
funding and allocating the money according to the various different
needs across their areas. Let me read from one memorandum which
gives an example of some of the funding problems that have arisen:
"When will SCE secondary schools receive the on average £98,000
extra per school given to each English secondary school by Gordon
Brown in April? It is now half-way through May and we have still
not received this funding. As a consequence, we are one English
teacher and one MFL teacher under-funded this September."
There is not just an issue as to the amount; there is concern
about the delay in handing over funding. When in the Budget the
Chancellor announces a large increase for education the flow-through
into the Ministry of Defence budget for education is not automatic
and not immediate. Would you include that in your consideration?
Jim Knight: I am very happy to
consider that. I am particularly wary of answering or making any
commitments on behalf of the Treasury, but I will certainly undertake
to write to the Chancellor and express the view you have just
put to me, if the Committee finds that helpful.
Q352 Mr Jones: I accept that, but
at the end of the day your department is responsible for looking
after children. Surely, we should have a situation where all kids
irrespective of whether they have been educated in the UK or at
schools abroad are treated the same and should have access to
that funding. I do not think it is any good your department hiding
behind the fact that there are other departments involved. I accept
that for you this is a learning curve in terms of dealing with
new tasks, but you have to take a more robust view. If you want
to make sure that these kids are to get just as good an education
as anyone else and have some of the goods things that this country
is doing you have to take that robust view with the MoD and Treasury.
It concerns me. Officers' children are fine; they are getting
good education in this, but I am really concerned that the kids
of lower ranks will lose out. Anything that we are doing just
by administrative nonsense between different departments adds
to that disadvantage. I think we need to stop.
Jim Knight: I share that concern,
but there is a constraint about where my responsibilities lie.
I am happy to write to the Chancellor and express the view that
the Chairman has indicated. I shall copy that to the MoD which
is the lead agency and the relevant minister. Clearly, the schools
operated by that agency are delivering the national curriculum
and they are being inspected by Ofsted. The results of those inspections
are, incidentally, positive and we must not lose sight of that.
But we need to ensure that all those children, whether they are
educated here or overseas, get the best possible opportunities.
Q353 Chairman: I want to concentrate
a little more on turbulence and mobility. Ms Garner rightly said
at the beginning that some of the SCE schools provided excellent
education. The impression I am getting is that we are looking
at this from the point of view of the school rather than each
individual child. Mr Jones said we had heard evidence from a child
who had attended 13 different schools. That child was 11. The
consequences for her education, however excellent may be the school
she goes to, must be very intense. What have you done to research
the effect that that sort of mobility and turbulence is having
on children and what you can do to mitigate its effects?
Jim Knight: There is a great deal
of evidence that that sort of mobility and turbulence will have
a profound impact on the education of a child. To some extent
I return to the earlier discussion about culture. Over the past
weekend the veterans' parade and festival, which is the largest
gathering of veterans in Britain, took place in Weymouth. I was
talking to some officers there. They quickly came to the conclusion
that they should board their children, despite the fact that they
were not desperately sympathetic to the idea initially because
of the amount of turbulence.
Q354 Chairman: As a matter of interest,
why do you think it was officers? Is this something that is not
available realistically to other ranks?
Jim Knight: There are 43 maintained
boarding schools in this country and those facilities are available
to other ranks but there are only 500 Service children in those
maintained schools. I think that issues of tradition and culture
inform that.
Q355 Chairman: It is not a matter
of money?
Jim Knight: No. The cost of going
to one of those maintained boarding schools is the cost of board
and lodging; there are no fees charged for education. Those schools
are subject to the national curriculum and admission arrangements
in the same way as other maintained schools. They are part of
the family of maintained schools and are there for this purpose,
but for whatever reason they are not taken up. My conclusion is
that it is traditional and cultural for the lower ranks to travel
with their families, whereas officers seem very rapidly to come
to the conclusion that boarding their children normally at independent
schools is the best thing for those children, and in educational
terms they may well be right.
Ms Garner: To deal with the question
of research into mobility, we know that this is a key factor which
affects attainment. I spent quite a bit of time reading your discussion
boards. From that it appears that the issue is very much one of
culture. A number of families said that they wanted their children
with them and not put into places like state boarding schools
which are relatively low cost.
Q356 Chairman: Therefore, for those
families for cultural reasons or whatever boarding is not the
answer?
Ms Garner: They choose not to.
Q357 Chairman: Therefore, do you
agree that you have to find other answers to cope with the issue
of turbulence and mobility?
Ms Garner: We need to address
it.
Jim Knight: Given that we know
mobility and turbulence have a profound effect on the attainment
of children in educational terms, if families choose to move as
postings change that turbulence will occur. It is very difficult
to mitigate it. I believe that the sorts of initiatives that the
Armed Forces are taking in wanting more stable basing will help
considerably when we get to that point. The challenge is what
we can do in the meantime across government working with that
culture and tradition to encourage people to take advantage of
opportunities. The more stable the environment with less mobility
and turbulence the better, but we cannot impose it upon parents
and families.
Q358 Linda Gilroy: Perhaps I may
take the minister back to his earlier suggestion that he might
look at forming a much more LEA-type body particularly in relation
to the new legislation, if it goes through. Similar circumstances
exist for children from the poor areas of my constituency taking
advantage of the whole range of choices available to them in some
very well established federations, which I know you will be visiting
quite soon. The choices made by parents of children with fragile
backgrounds, if they take any interest, are very different from
those made by more articulate parents on behalf of their children.
What is envisaged in the new Bill as part of the enhanced role
of local authorities, as I understand it, is that there should
be champions. Those champions should champion the interests of
children from fragile backgrounds in my constituency. I would
have thought that in your thinking on these matters a similar
possibility, whether it is related to this Bill or otherwise,
could be considered. That is related to some other issues that
I want to put on the table. I know that the Government attaches
increasing importance to the staying-on rate and how to improve
it. That is an issue which has emerged in some of the evidence
submitted to us. I know that Connections, which is a kind of careers
advice-plus service, has had varying success across the country
but particularly in Devon and Cornwall. All of these matters ought
to be looked at also in relation to Service children. I very much
warm to the idea that you put on the table and it may well be
one that we want to consider in our report.
Jim Knight: We made some announcements
this week about choice advisers—that is the term we use
rather than "champions"—in respect of the funding
of local authorities to enable them to go ahead and appoint them.
Those parents who are perhaps less articulate and assertive in
exercising choice are given some support in doing so. That is
certainly something on which I can reflect alongside the point
you make about Connections and talk to my colleagues within the
department about the extent to which we configure those services
in a way that is sympathetic to the needs of Service children.
Ms Garner: It is quite handy that
I am also in charge of choice advisers policy as well as Service
children's education.
Chairman: Minister, I know that you have
to go at 11.30. We shall turn to a few issues that relate to all
children who have mobility, but they particularly affect Service
children, including the transfer of records.
Q359 Mr Borrow: We have been told
repeatedly that in the case of children who move schools, particularly
Service children, there are difficulties in getting records from
previous schools quickly and efficiently so that teachers in the
new school know how to personalise the education of those children.
I am sure you will be aware that that is an issue. I am interested
in the extent to which you are doing something about it to try
to improve it. What have you done?
Jim Knight: We have regulations
which say that records must be transferred within 15 days of the
transfer taking place. We are rolling out the use of a common
transfer file which can be in hard copy or in electronic form,
and certainly when it is the latter that can ease and speed the
process significantly. I am advised that all the SCE schools have
the common transfer file protocol and have it in electronic form
which facilitates matters. The main obstacle that can occur arises
where it is unclear what the old school is when one is in a new
school or what the new school is if one is in the old school.
That is a continuing difficulty with some of these transfers,
and it is something that through the working group we would look
to improve.
Ms Garner: There are issues around
the trickle postings because some of those are delayed because
of admission issues. There is also another set of issues concerning
the bulk movements, because there are just so many records to
be transferred at one time. The SCE are very much involved in
discussions about the common transfer and issues are being worked
out on this.
| 
