Uncorrected Evidence 1054

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 1054-iii

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

DEFENCE COMMITTEE

EDUCATING SERVICE CHILDREN

Tuesday 13 June 2006

JIM KNIGHT MP, and MS SUE GARNER

Evidence heard in Public Questions 303 - 371

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.	Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.	Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.	Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Defence Committee

on Tuesday 13 June 2006

Members present

Mr James Arbuthnot, in the Chair

Mr David S Borrow

Linda Gilroy

Mr David Hamilton

Mr Dai Havard

Mr Kevan Jones

Willie Rennie

________________

Memorandum submitted by the Department for Education and Skills

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Jim Knight, a Member of the House, Minister of State for Schools, and Ms Sue Garner, Head of the School Admissions and Class Size Unit (responsible for the Department's links with the MoD and SCE), Department for Education and Skills, gave evidence.

Q303 Chairman: Minister and Ms Garner, welcome to this morning's evidence session which is about the education of service children. We are now close to the end of this inquiry. Minister, we extend our congratulations to you on taking on this job and immediately landing yourself before this Select Committee to answer questions about something that is a bit off your normal brief. Perhaps we may begin by discovering the extent to which it is off your normal brief. Can you give a brief description of the extent to which the DfES is responsible for the education of service children? Linda Gilroy will then want to go into whether or not the DfES should be more responsible than it is for the education of service children.

Jim Knight: Thank you very much. It is a delight that my first appearance is before a Select Committee of which I was a Member, and I am certainly pleased to be given the opportunity to appear before you and to make sure that I am a little more up to speed and briefed on these issues. Some 15 years ago I was governor of a school in Wiltshire through which a lot of service children passed, so it is good that I should be reminded of some of the issues that we then faced in Warminster. As to your question, obviously when children are being educated in the maintained sector in this country they are the responsibility of DfES. When they are posted overseas they are educated by the SCE which is an agency of MoD, but that is in turn subject to inspection by Ofsted. That is a non-ministerial departmental body, but Ofsted is accountable to Parliament through DfES. Our role is very much more hands off and off our brief once the children are offshore, but in principle the way to regard it is that when they are in this country they are very much our responsibility but when they are overseas they are not.

Q304 Chairman: Ms Garner, I should have asked you to introduce yourself and tell us a bit about your responsibilities.

Ms Garner: I am head of the School Admissions and Class Size Unit of DfES. Part of my brief is to perform a liaison role with the Service Children's Education agency of the MoD. I am one of the members of the owner's board and attend its meetings. Although they are offshore, we know what is going on with the children who are being taught under the SCE agency. Another member of DfES who is on the owner's board with me is Graham Last, an education adviser. He gives SCE a good deal of advice. I am also a member of the Service Children in State Schools working group which was set up by the department just to address the issue of service children in schools in the UK.

Q305 Chairman: Can you list the methods by which the MoD and DfES ensure a joined-up approach in the education of service children? You described a few of those mechanisms. Are there any others?

Ms Garner: We try to get our policy colleagues in DfES to consider what happens when children go abroad. For example, we made sure that children who were at SCE schools doing the same kinds of courses as in the UK were eligible for education maintenance awards. It is very much a matter of awareness-raising and saying to colleagues in the case of a policy that could affect them, for example SCN, "How can we pass on statements on SCN and ensure that information on children in schools in the UK is passed to schools abroad and back?" Those are very much the mechanisms that we use, not to mainstream it but to work it through all the policies to see whether there is an angle that needs to be covered.

Jim Knight: Principally, I believe that in 2004 the then Secretary of State, Charles Clarke, acknowledged that we needed to do better. That was why the Children Education Advisory Service was commissioned to look at what we needed to do to address it. As a result, the service children in state schools working group was set up to try to forge a better link and make things a little more joined up than they had been.

Q306 Linda Gilroy: Minister, you will know as well as I that education has been a top priority for this Government, its best known mantra perhaps being "education, education, education". I want to explore by way of one or two questions whether you feel at the outset - I know that you are very new to this - that this is really being interpreted in the way it should be. My first question is whether to your knowledge any consideration has been given perhaps to passing to DfES the lead role for all service children's education?

Jim Knight: I interpret that to mean the lead role when they are overseas.

Q307 Linda Gilroy: Including overseas, because in state schools that is the case?

Jim Knight: To my knowledge, we have not specifically had a discussion about taking the lead in terms of education overseas. Clearly, the body that provides that education is an MoD agency. There are some strengths in having the MoD involved in that way given that, as the Committee has discussed, one factor in making sure some of the transfer arrangements work well is good notice of posting and some liaison of that kind. If the MoD were less involved the chances of making progress, as we are starting to do, would be lessened because it might be suggested that this was a DfES not an MoD problem. We all know the dangers of "departmentalitis" and join-up is more an answer than otherwise. There are two matters in which I am interested to assist that join-up. One is whether the DfES should regard the agency a little more like a local authority and how far we can push that. That is one of the matters I have in mind as a result of doing work to appear before you today. The other is to see whether we can involve the Armed Forces more in schools where there are concentrations of service children, possibly through trust schools in particular, and whether there are opportunities for the Armed Forces to become directly involved in trusts which potentially would make them much more sympathetic to the needs of service children.

Q308 Linda Gilroy: In a way, you have answered some of the questions that I intended to ask, which is encouraging. It may be that Ms Garner is in a better position to answer my next question. When education Bills are proposed, as they are regularly, is an impact assessment carried out pre-legislation and post-legislation to see how it should be interpreted? You mentioned trusts and money coming forward for personalised support for children. I refer to the Every Child Matters programme. I should like to get a more detailed sense of how your department makes sure that in working in that close relationship with MoD that agenda is really pushed forward. I also want to explore trust schools. Is there a proposal to try to introduce a trust element, perhaps with specialist school status, in the forces' schools for which MoD is directly responsible?

Jim Knight: As to pre-legislative discussion, a good example is the debate that has gone on in respect of the new admissions code. You will know that in the context of the Bill we are looking for a strengthened admissions code to be written into the statute so that admissions authorities have to act in accordance with it as opposed to having due regard to it. One of the ways in which we seek to strengthen it is to improve the status of service children in that admissions code. That will be published in full for consultation in September and no doubt those interested in the subject will respond according to the proposals we make. I am sure there are areas where we can do better with that liaison and pre-legislative discussion and there may be areas within the department which need to be reminded slightly more often about the impact on service children. In general terms the picture I get is one of improvement, but I am still not satisfied with the educational outcomes for service children and think we can do better. In respect of trust schools, I am not sure we can go down the route of specialist school status for the Armed Forces. That has not occurred to me and I would have to think about it more carefully, but there is a lot of potential in trust schools with the Armed Forces being involved in them. Trust schools would be their own admissions authorities, subject to parliamentary approval in the legislation. They could set criteria that would be consulted upon locally to give priority to service children in admission terms. Given some of the worries about admissions in this area, that might be helpful. One of the things we seek with some trust schools is the opportunity to improve ethos. An attractive part of the diversity and choice we seek to achieve with this agenda is the ability to offer that in certain circumstances. In respect of the education of forces' children we have seen the setting up of independent schools with a very strong ethos largely for officers' children. Would it not be nice to extend that to the maintained sector so that the children of lower ranks also had those opportunities?

Q309 Chairman: You gave one answer in relation to specialist schools that I did not understand. Are you saying you are not sure whether it is appropriate to have specialist schools or that it is not a matter you have considered and you want to take it away and think about it further?

Jim Knight: It is a bit of both. It is not an option that I have considered at all. I will always reflect on what people say to me, but my instinctive reaction is that it is not appropriate.

Q310 Linda Gilroy: Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that he takes it away and looks at it, because it is my understanding there is a commitment that every secondary school should have the opportunity to have specialist status.

Jim Knight: Yes.

Q311 Linda Gilroy: The Minister may also wish to look at this in the context of the trust issue, subject to the legislation, and the question whether federated trust status may be suitable, particularly to bring together some of the companies which perhaps have an interest in the defence industry to achieve very special status for forces' schools. I will leave it there and perhaps return to one or two of the other issues in the context of this question.

Jim Knight: In response to that, one of the several models and options of trust school that we would be looking at would be a confederation with several partners in the trust. One can conceivably have a partnership between the Armed Forces and defence companies.

Q312 Linda Gilroy: And universities?

Jim Knight: Yes. To have several partners and several schools is one of the models we are considering.

Q313 Mr Jones: The key point here is the education of children. I hear what you say about the MoD bringing something to the table. Surely, at the end of the day it is about educating children and making sure that they have the best start in life. If that is good enough for 98 or 99 per cent of the population of this country, why should it not be for service children?

Jim Knight: It should be for service children. "Every child matters" is the mantra and service children matter just as much as anybody else. They face particular challenges because of mobility, but they are not unique in that respect.

Q314 Mr Jones: But the whole reason for the existence of your department is to ensure that education is the best possible. What has come out of this inquiry and concerns me a little is that with your arm's length relationship with the MoD there are two tracks for the education of service children: one for officers and one for the rest of the ranks. Clearly, one is better than the other. Would that not be different if you had total control over this area rather than the inbuilt hierarchical structure based on chain of command which is clearly present in the MoD and spills over into this area?

Jim Knight: I am not sure that it would. There are some cultural as well as structural and departmental challenges. In particular, it would seem that culturally it is perfectly normal for officers' children to be sent to boarding school, whereas even though we have a number of maintained boarding schools not many in the lower ranks choose to take up that option. They prefer to travel with their children to Germany, Belize or wherever it is they are going and use the schools that are provided by the agency. I think it becomes difficult for us to tell parents where they have to send their children. We offer them a choice and it is up to them. Perhaps we could offer a greater range of choice, which is why I am interested in whether or not we can use trust schools as a way of developing that, but I think that the bigger challenges are the cultural ones.

Q315 Mr Jones: Do you not think that those cultural challenges would be better addressed by your department than the MoD which clearly concentrates on the chain-of-command structure? It is quite clear that the children of lower ranks are getting a poorer education than officers' children. One girl who gave evidence said that she had been to 13 different schools. That cannot be good for that individual child. One piece of evidence compared them with gypsy or travellers' children; they move around constantly. Surely, it should concern you as an education minister that just because their parents are in the Armed Forces they are getting a poorer education?

Ms Garner: The schools provided by SCE abroad provide a very good education. If one looks at them in comparison with many English local education authority schools they are above average; they are in the top 25 per cent. Those schools are regularly inspected by Ofsted and always come out with very good reports. The problem is mobility. As Mr Knight said, it comes down to how one tells parents that they have to send their children to certain schools and keep them there when they travel abroad. The schools set up by SCE are of a very good standard. We as well as the MoD are involved in how the education is given to children. We have an education adviser who works with SCE and Ofsted works with the schools. We make sure that things like personalisation are taken into account. The chief executive officer, David Wadsworth, has regular meetings with me and colleagues so we can discuss things like personalisation and bring in the departmental expert. All of those issues are taken into account. It just happens that MoD does the funding, but the schools abroad are of very good quality.

Jim Knight: The root of the answer to your question is: who is best placed to influence that culture? We are providing good education in terms of schools abroad and, obviously, the schools in England are available to service families as well as everybody else. Mobility is at the root of it. We know that mobility informs educational achievement very significantly. You mentioned travellers. There are a number of different groups. If one looks at the statistics for local authorities with high levels of mobility, they do not match at all those with high concentrations of service children. It is largely the inner-city authorities which have the highest levels of mobility. It is a big challenge for us in lots of ways, but it is not specific to this group. I believe that culturally the MoD is best placed to do this through its direct relationship with some of its third sector partners - SAFRO and other voluntary sector organisations - which work pastorally with service families to influence that culture. I know that over the longer term the Armed Forces, particularly the Army, are interested through housing and other measures in encouraging a more stable and home-based life for service families, but it will take some time to achieve that.

Q316 Mr Jones: I think you have failed the first test of a minister of any department. You are supposed to try to get work for your department, not give it away or ensure other Whitehall departments keep their bailiwick. There will be a change in terms of deployment. You will have larger bases and more stable situations which will lead to less travelling for the majority of children. Do you believe that that provides an opportunity for you to expand your empire into this area which will lead to large bases where kids do not move around as much as they do at the moment?

Jim Knight: You may regard the desire to expand an empire and become a huge monstrosity as a test of being a minister. I regard it as my mission to make sure we make the best decisions as a government. We will play our role in that. Joined-up government is an aspiration which we are constantly chasing after, so let us put the responsibility where it fits best. Larger bases are a good opportunity to address these problems. Clearly, it is right that we should have the responsibility in this country, but at the moment I am not persuaded that taking over directly the running of schools overseas is correct. I do not know whether or not we can improve the relationship with SCE by regarding it much more as a local authority which delivers and strategically plans education in this country. We deliver some education through academies but it is done mostly by local authorities or other providers. I do not think that we are in the game of being a deliverer.

Q317 Chairman: It sounds as though you are open-minded about the possibility of giving further thought to this.

Jim Knight: I am very open-minded in thinking about how we develop the relationship on a quasi-local authority basis with SCE.

Q318 Mr Hamilton: Your first answer to Mr Jones indicated that the same opportunities were afforded to all people in relation to boarding. That was not the impression we gained when we took evidence in Germany. One of the things that has happened in the Armed Forces over a period of time is that, like every other department, a lot of out-sourcing takes place, which effectively means that running parallel to the Armed Forces is a whole spectrum of people who, in the long game if you like, are based in various places throughout the world, and yet in some cases the same opportunities are not afforded to their children as those offered to the children of members of the Armed Forces. One of the matters raised in Germany by people who have been stationed there for some time is that there are differences in approach in relation to that. Is that something that you will also consider over the period?

Jim Knight: Certainly that is something I shall consider. Are you referring to sponsors' reserves?

Q319 Mr Hamilton: There are people stationed in Germany working long term with the Armed Forces but they are a different wing of the Armed Forces. An interesting point was raised with us about the opportunities available to their children to get the same facilities. They were not always available to them.

Jim Knight: That is certainly something that I can take away and look at.

Q320 Chairman: Generally, there is a lot of contract work being done in Germany. Perhaps we can go into the general issues that you believe service children face. We have discussed mobility and turbulence, to which we will come in some detail. Let us accept that as perhaps the major issue facing service children. What do you regard as being the other main issues facing service children?

Jim Knight: The work done by the working group on service children in state schools raised similar issues to those that the Committee has been exploring. Mobility and the funding of mobility was way up there. Transfer of records and information was seen as significant. There were particular concerns in respect of children with special educational needs. Those would be the three main items.

Chairman: One point made to us in Colchester was that whilst we might have received evidence fairly predominantly from parents whose children had special educational needs, there was just as much need to cope as well as possible with children who were naturally of very high attainment but who might be being held back by turbulence. The next issue that we would like to go into is how we identify service children.

Q321 Mr Borrow: We have heard evidence that the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) does not at the moment include data which would identify the number of service children in state schools. An argument has been made that it would be an advantage if that was the case, but I understand that up to this point the department has not gone along with it. Would you like to comment on both the merits of such an identification and the reasons for the department's reluctance to accept that argument?

Jim Knight: It is certainly something that we have looked at. As an initial view we thought it might be desirable, but in consultation with local authorities and head teachers a strong view was expressed that we should not do it and that it was yet further bureaucracy and procedure that they would have to go through. The balance of opinion then was that we should not do it and should have a stable regime for the census until 2010. That is the current position.

Ms Garner: When the matter went to the focus group of head teachers and local authorities they could not see the need for it nationally even though I thought we had made quite a good case for it. It was decided not to add it to the census, which is quite a big data collection process anyway.

Q322 Mr Borrow: In my constituency where the number of service families is relatively small head teachers may well turn round and say that to tick all of those boxes is to very little purpose, but obviously from the department's point of view there would be advantages in having that data. What advantages would that bring?

Jim Knight: I believe that there would be advantages to local authorities where there are concentrations of service children. Our funding arrangements are directly with local authorities. For example, the delegated schools fund is paid to local authorities and they then decide how to allocate it on the basis of their own formulas. It may be useful to local authorities to know precisely which schools may need extra help because of concentrations of service families, mobility and all the reasons that one might want to improve funding for particular schools. For example, Wiltshire does that reasonably effectively, but, given that we do not fund schools directly, in this regard it is for us less of an issue than it would be for some local authorities.

Q323 Mr Borrow: Presumably, those local authorities with large concentrations of service children would need to put in place some data collection of their own irrespective of PLASC?

Jim Knight: Yes, and they could do that.

Ms Garner: They could do so. Another option that we are looking at is analysis of the data from the national pupil database to try to identify the characteristics of schools with large numbers of service children. In 2004 the Children's Education Advisory Service working with ourselves and MoD held a series of workshops and tried to gather a list of as many schools as possible that had service children. We have quite a bit of data already to start looking at the characteristics of those schools and identify key issues, but it will not be through PLASC.

Q324 Chairman: Why is it not going to be through PLASC?

Ms Garner: Because the focus group that looked at the items to be included in the annual census decided that it should not be part of it.

Q325 Chairman: Of course it did because the vast majority of schools do not have a predominance of service children, but this sounds like the tyranny of the majority, does it not?

Jim Knight: To be fair, as we explored it for the majority to have to go through the exercise of recording might be unduly burdensome, but there is nothing to stop authorities with concentrations, like Hampshire and Wiltshire, asking schools to record it so that they can make sure that when they come to allocate their funding from government they do so in a way that is sensitive to the needs of particular schools where there is a large turnover of service children.

Q326 Chairman: But, surely, the issue is whether schools with service children are at a disadvantage and the children themselves are at a disadvantage. You do not even have a definition of "service child", do you?

Jim Knight: I am not aware that we do.

Ms Garner: No. If I wanted a definition I would ask MoD how it defined services families and service children. That department leads in this area and I would use its definition.

Q327 Chairman: Is there not some educational reason to know what disadvantages a child has experienced during his or her previous life that would be of benefit to you in terms of having some sort of tag attached to that child so you would know how best to maximise the child's educational potential?

Ms Garner: It would probably be a benefit to the schools that teach those children.

Q328 Chairman: But most schools that do not face this issue would say this would mean extra bureaucracy. If Brigadier Brister tells us that it would be hugely useful for us to have that information I would very much like to have it. Should you be at the mercy of focus groups saying that they will not impose that burden on schools? Would it be a huge extra burden given the quality of the information that would come out of it for service children?

Ms Garner: I can only tell you that I put forward the best case I could and the focus group was the one that made the final decision or recommendation that ministers accepted as the final position.

Mr Jones: So, do we have policy-making by a focus group?

Q329 Chairman: This may well be one of the most important issues to come out of what we eventually decide. I do not know because the Committee has not considered it. But we would very much hope that any decisions are made by ministers on the basis of information that comes to them, including evidence from the Brigadier in charge of service children's education, and is not limited to a focus group.

Ms Garner: I mis-spoke.

Chairman: I am not sure that you did, and that is the problem.

Q330 Mr Hamilton: There is a further dimension. Midlothian has just taken on the Highlanders who have moved back. There has not been a regimental base in Midlothian for the past 15 years and so it is a new experience. Just to reinforce some of these points, I went to the school on Friday. The level of support of the teaching staff was quite limited in relation to the new dimension of the 100 or so kids coming in, even to the extent that some talked about how they could distribute the children throughout schools in Midlothian. There are 30 primary schools. I strongly argued with the education authority in my area that that would be wrong based on evidence we heard in Germany where children take comfort from each other, especially when the parents are in conflict situations. But in this situation there is not a number of schools but only one school in one location. There is also the Scottish dimension, because education authorities are different. One of the basic procedures is that when children return from abroad the education facilities that are offered are all based on an English system, not a Scottish one. What work is being done in relation to that?

Jim Knight: I cannot answer for Scotland.

Q331 Mr Hamilton: You must be able to answer for Scotland because you are appearing here on behalf of the same provision. Therefore, there must be information about Scottish education.

Jim Knight: I am responsible only for schools and education in England, not Scotland.

Q332 Chairman: What parliamentary responsibility exists for the education of service children in Scotland?

Jim Knight: While they are being educated in Scotland that would lie with the Scottish Parliament.

Q333 Mr Hamilton: Can you explain the rationale? What discussions take place with the MoD in relation to trying to support Scottish children who have been transferred back?

Jim Knight: It is not something of which I am aware.

Ms Garner: I have not been involved in it because we do not handle Scottish education.

Mr Jones: I am sorry but you do.

Q334 Chairman: Do you see that there may be a gap in responsibilities here?

Jim Knight: I do not know what discussions take place between the Scottish Executive and the MoD agency that educates children overseas. That agency chooses to use the English national curriculum. I apologise, but I can answer only for things for which I am responsible.

Q335 Mr Jones: I will ask you what you are responsible for. What liaison is there between you as a department and the Scottish Executive? Do you say that suddenly when one gets just past Berwick the children are thrown over the border into Scotland and you are not really interested in what happens?

Jim Knight: Clearly, I am interested in children wherever, but I do not have responsibility for the education of children in Scotland. Part of the devolution settlement was that that lies with the Scottish Executive.

Q336 Mr Jones: But you do have responsibility for these children. In some cases the mothers and fathers of these children are employed by the MoD and they can be moved from England and Wales to overseas - Germany - and then to Scotland. You have already said there is a very good system for liaising with the MoD over service children in Germany. Are you saying that we can have a system where DfES has a great system for liaising with the MoD for the education of children in Germany but not Scotland, because basically that is what you are saying?

Jim Knight: No, I do not think I am.

Q337 Mr Jones: You are, because you are saying that it is not your responsibility?

Jim Knight: I am responsible for the education of children in England. The MoD has an executive agency that is responsible for their education overseas.

Q338 Mr Jones: Is Scotland classed as "overseas"?

Jim Knight: No.

Chairman: Do not misinterpret what the minister is saying.

Q339 Mr Jones: I am not.

Jim Knight: If the transfer of a child from England to Scotland takes place the responsibility goes from the DfES to the Scottish Executive; if it is a transfer from overseas to Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland it goes to the competent authority in accordance with the devolution settlement.

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 peoples 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 per cent increase worth over �1,000 per pupil over the past nine years, and it has another 6.9 per cent 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 not in charge of choice advisers for 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 are being worked with on this.

Q360 Mr Borrow: Are you aware of any difference between education authorities in terms of performance, or is it simply a matter of some schools being better than others?

Jim Knight: I think it is more down at the school level.

Ms Garner: It is more down to the school level and knowing where the child is going next.

Jim Knight: In these circumstances the more time that is given in respect of notice of posting the easier it is to get all these things in place and to resolve them clearly, and there is greater clarity over where the new school will be and then all those arrangements can be set up.

Q361 Chairman: Minister, we have heard from you about the 15-day rule, but we have also heard from others that it is routinely not followed. What are you doing to ensure, first, that it is and, second, that when it is transferred the quality of the information is higher?

Jim Knight: The 15-day rule is set out in regulation so it is a requirement that it be fulfilled. That would be part of Ofsted's inspection of schools and it would want to see that schools fulfilled their obligations in regulation and law. If it saw evidence that it was routinely failing to fulfil its obligations under regulation it would be something on which it would have to report. The governors would then have to respond in the normal way to failings identified by Ofsted in its report.

Q362 Chairman: Can you take away from this Committee the evidence it has received that it is routinely not followed?

Jim Knight: Certainly, and I am very happy to talk to the chief inspector and remind him of what you have just said.

Q363 Mr Borrow: I turn to an area similar to one we touched on earlier: special education needs and the issuing of statements. I know that during the 15 or 16 years I was governor of various schools, including a special educational needs school, getting statements in the first place was a hassle and difficult. For parents who have to move fairly frequently and transfer their children from one school to another to start all over again to get a statement is just damaging to the children's education. This is not simply an issue for service children but for all children in a period of increased mobility. Is it not possible to do some work to ensure that a statement which is acceptable to all LEAs can be transferred so that we do not have to start from scratch every time a child moves from one LEA to another or from Germany to the UK?

Jim Knight: I have looked at the ideas which have been floated around in relation to a statement passport, which sounds like the sort of thing you are describing. I believe that it is an interesting idea. There are challenges attached to it. One must ensure that the assessment is up to date. Clearly, for some children their needs evolve. One challenge is how regularly one updates what should be in the passport. That is a particular issue in respect of transfers back from overseas. Currently, there are issues of competence overseas, and one area in which I am interested is whether we treat the agency a little more like a local authority. It is an area where the more notice we have the greater the possibility, if we do not have any kind of up-to-date assessment, of some of the work being done perhaps by educational psychologists who prepare the statements whilst they are still overseas, but often we do not have that ability given the timing or capacity because so many children are moving at once. I think it would be difficult to have a situation where one accepted a statement that might have been used prior to the overseas posting because of changing needs, and as ever with SEN there is such a range of different abilities and needs that it is difficult to make sweeping statements about what we should and should not do. There may be some pretty stable conditions where we may be able to work something out; there may be others which evolve much more quickly and it is just inevitable that we would go through a fresh assessment process every time they moved to ensure that it is up to date and that the parents are offered the opportunity to state their preference for a school which suits that particular local authority area.

Q364 Mr Borrow: A child aged five that starts in a mainstream school and leaves at 16 is statemented. That statement will be reviewed regularly, even if the child is not moving all over the country. To a certain extent the statements are not tablets of stone. I cannot get my head round a situation where, say, a child moves with 20 kids from a class in Germany and lands in a school in the UK. Let us say that that child has had extra classroom support for three or three-and-a-half days a week and when it arrives in a mainstream school here it starts from scratch and has to wait a year or 18 months or two years to get a statement. During that period no extra support is given to that child. The statement on which support was provided in Germany is still there. It would seem logical to say that the child should be transferred with the statement. We know that it will have to be reviewed but the school can then get the resources to provide the in-class support for that child. If the statement is reviewed and a different judgment is made we go through the process but do not leave the child stranded for 18 months to two years without a statement and all the previous support being taken away until the education authority gets round to doing the new statement. I think it is so obvious and important that, even if the statement that the child had before is not perfect, it is better to do that than have no statement and support.

Jim Knight: I think you make a very good point. The Education and Skills Select Committee is currently concluding a report on SEN. I am sure that will give us food for thought on how we can develop and improve provision for SEN generally, but certainly I would want to bear in mind some of that thinking in respect of how we respond. But I shall want to respond to the whole issue alongside my colleague Lord Adonis who takes particular responsibility for SEN. I believe that a situation in which children are left high and dry for a long period of time without any kind of statement, support or assessment taking place is not tolerable. We need to find ways to resolve it.

Q365 Mr Borrow: Will you be reading with interest our recommendations at the end of this inquiry?

Jim Knight: Certainly.

Q366 Chairman: In that context I take you back to the example of the 11 year-old child who has attended 13 schools. I do not believe that in that case she needed a statement, but the concept of having an up-to-date statement would be meaningless unless such a statement could be produced routinely in two weeks. Clearly, since it is taking about two years the idea of keeping things up to date is meaningless.

Jim Knight: Ninety-two per cent of statements are produced within the statutory 18 weeks, so I do not want the Committee to go away with the impression that two years is the norm.

Q367 Linda Gilroy: It may be that this arises in those schools where they know the children will be moving on so the incentive to do it just does not arise. It is probable that the average for schools with large numbers of service children is much higher?

Jim Knight: Yes.

Q368 Chairman: We have three minutes left. I should like to fit in if possible two questions. Should local education authorities accept a unit postal address from which to apply to schools in the absence of a new home postal address?

Jim Knight: I believe that is helpful.

Ms Garner: And we advise them to do so.

Q369 Chairman: But you have no power to insist?

Ms Garner: We can put it in the school admissions code which is being rewritten.

Q370 Chairman: That is very helpful. The answer to the next question may not be so straightforward. Would it be feasible for schools near garrisons in the UK to have reserved places for service children?

Jim Knight: I do not believe that it would be. The answer to that question provided by Don Touhig was probably right. It would be difficult for any of us as constituency MPs, given the pressures to which all of us are subject when admissions are taking place, to say that a child cannot go into a particular school because it is possible that a service child may need it. It may be that what I talked about earlier in respect of schools being set up or moving to a situation where they have their own admissions arrangements for current service children would be helpful, but to hold back places on the chance that they might be needed becomes very difficult.

Q371 Chairman: We will go over what you have already said about boarding schools and if necessary we may or may not write to you. Minister and Ms Garner, I should like to finish by thanking you for coming to give evidence to a "foreign" Select Committee about issues that are nevertheless extremely important to the children and the fighting forces of our country.

Jim Knight: Thank you very much. I entirely endorse your motivation.