Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
WEDNESDAY 2 NOVEMBER 2005
RT HON
RUTH KELLY
MP
Q1 Helen Jones: I want to explore
with you some of the evidence underlying the policies set out
in the White Paper and in particular the Government lays great
stress in the White Paper on the success of its academy programme
and argues that they have raised standards amongst the poorest
children but the figures from your own Department show that a
number of academies have far fewer children on free school meals
than their predecessor schools. In Walsall, for instance, it dropped
from over 50% to 15.9%; in Bexley, it dropped from 45.9 to 37.9;
King's, if I have worked out the average of its two predecessor
schools right, dropped from just over 43% to 31.5%. How can you
argue that these academies are dealing with the poorest children
when the evidence shows that a number of academies are dealing
with fewer poorer children than they did in the first place?
Ruth Kelly: I know
that is what the media has been saying but it is not right.
Q2 Helen Jones: They are the figures
from your own Department.
Ruth Kelly: I am extremely pleased
that this point has been raised. If you look at the figures on
free school meals in predecessor schools, there were 980. If you
look at the number of pupils on free school meals in academies
now, it is 1,100. Academies have improved their performance. They
are attracting more children to the school on free school meals
and more children whose parents otherwise would not have looked
at those schools at all. The result has been that not only are
they catering for pupils at predecessor schools; they are also
catering for other pupils. The proportion of children on free
school meals has therefore fallen. The total numbers have risen.
This must be a very good testament to the success of academies
in raising standards and attracting pupils.
Q3 Helen Jones: Greig City Academy
has 320 pupils eligible for free school meals out of 710. Its
predecessor school had 338. I could go through the whole list
but I am not sure the numbers stack up. Can I also draw your attention
to the answer you gave me on where the pupils are coming from?
These schools were set up to deal with the poorest pupils in the
inner cities; yet some city academies are now taking very few
pupils from the ward in which they are situated. For example,
Bexley takes 27.8% of its pupils from outside the LA. Greig takes
25% from outside the LA. There are others in that position too.
The question that follows is that, if these academies are dealing
with a different cohort of pupils from their predecessor schools,
is not any argument about the results rather meaningless because
you are not comparing like with like? The argument that they have
improved results underlines a lot of what is in the White Paper
but you are not dealing with the same cohort of pupils.
Ruth Kelly: That is not right.
To take the 14 academies that were looked at in The Guardian,
there were 13,670 pupils in those 14 academies compared to 11,840
in their predecessor schools. They are attracting more pupils.
They replaced predecessor sink schools but nobody wanted to send
their pupils to them. They are now serving not only those pupils
but also drawing in pupils from further away because they are
good schools. The net result has been that not only are they serving
the disadvantaged pupils; they are also serving others as well.
You quote one academy and I am not sure which it is. I do not
have the individual figures here but across the board the number
of children on free school meals being educated in academies compared
with predecessor schools has risen. They are also serving other
children. That is a sign of success.
Q4 Helen Jones: I do not doubt they
are attracting other children but my question was if you are not
dealing with the same cohort of pupils the Government's argument
about the results is a very difficult one to make a case for because
you are not comparing like with like, are you? The whole argument
is that they have improved results for poorer pupils but the cohort
of pupils that they are dealing with in many academies is a different
one from their predecessor schools. That is correct, is it not?
You have just said that.
Ruth Kelly: They are very popular
and they are drawing in more pupils as a result. You have to ask
yourself why are they popular. It is probably because they are
teaching children well. They are providing well for pupil wellbeing
in general. They have a good ethos. They work well with parents
and they are improving standards. It is probably a combination
of all those things.
Helen Jones: I think the evidence on the results
is very variable. It is very patchy between academies.
Chairman: Is that the case?
Q5 Helen Jones: Results are variable
between academies, are they not? Some have improved their GCSE
results; some have become worse and some have stayed the same.
Ruth Kelly: That is right but
on average they have improved their results at three times the
national average.
Q6 Helen Jones: The results are patchy.
They are not all performing at the same level.
Ruth Kelly: Of course. You would
not expect any specific school to perform exactly the same as
any other specific school.
Helen Jones: The Government is drawing inferences
from this for its future programme. What I am trying to draw out
from you is that the evidence is very variable.
Chairman: You are saying that the academies
are improving three times faster than other schools?
Q7 Helen Jones: Overall, but not
all academies.
Ruth Kelly: Last year they improved
at three times the rate of the national average. They are increasingly
over-subscribed and they are drawing in children from other catchment
areas but they are also serving exactly the same disadvantaged
pupils that were previously at a sink school.
Q8 Helen Jones: The Government says
it wants to increase choice for parents in order to improve the
opportunities for pupils from poorer backgrounds. The academy
programme shows them drawing in pupils from elsewhere and the
research from Bristol University recently has indicated that the
more choice there is in the school system the more socially segregated
schools become. It is not improving things for that bottom 25%
that this Committee has been most concerned with in various inquiries.
Do you accept that research?
Ruth Kelly: Let us take the academies
programme. We have made the academy schools more inclusive and
integrated than their predecessor schools because their predecessor
schools had such an overwhelming proportion of children on free
school meals that they were not representative of the local intake.
They have become more socially representative as a result of the
movement to academies, the improvement in leadership at the schools
and the different ethos that they are committed to and so forth.
If we can have the same mission and ethos in other schools that
there are currently in academies, we have the prospect of driving
up standards throughout the system and creating a more inclusive
system. The reason that research in the past has pointed to choice
producing social segregation is that choice has traditionally
worked only for those who can afford it, those who can move near
to a school that is performing well or indeed those who can afford
to buy private education. What we want to do in the White Paper
is move away from that and move to a system where choice works
for the disadvantaged. That is the whole thrust and rationale
behind the White Paper, that we want to offer that choice of really
high performing, good schools with a strong ethos to everybody.
Q9 Helen Jones: In that case, why
has your Department refused to accept the conclusion that this
Committee came up with that the code of practice on admissions
should have statutory force rather than be something that schools
merely have to have regard to? Surely, unless that has statutory
force, we will still be in the situation where schools choose
parents rather than parents choosing schools.
Ruth Kelly: The adjudicator system
is on a statutory basis. You are absolutely right. The code of
admissions is a code of good and fair practice that schools should
have regard to but if another school or the local authority complains
about a school's practice, they refer it to the adjudicator and
the adjudicator can take a binding decision on the basis of whether
that procedure is fair or not. There is a specific instance on
faith schools where they are referred directly to the Secretary
of State but for all other schools the adjudicator takes the decision
on a statutory basis.
Q10 Helen Jones: Why then should
someone disadvantaged by the system have to wait for a complaint
to be made? This Committee said in its report that fairness in
public policy ought not to be a matter of luck but a matter of
course. If we believe that that should apply throughout the country,
why do we not have a statutory system rather than leaving the
admissions system to complaints from different local authorities
who may or may not choose to make them?
Ruth Kelly: What I think will
happen under the new framework in the Schools White Paper is that
local authorities will have a much clearer remit to act as the
champion of parents and pupils. If they take that duty seriously—and
they will have to because it is a new legislative duty that we
are proposing—they should act as champions of all pupils
who are not being fairly served by the system, particularly those
who are disadvantaged. For example, if a local authority sees
that a school has a biased catchment area or is not giving sufficient
priority to particular groups of children that you would expect
under the code, they can refer that school or indeed groups of
schools to the adjudicator. The adjudicator takes a common sense
view on the basis of the admissions code about what is right for
children in that area and it is on a statutory basis. I think
that is quite a firm way of determining admissions and it will
work better in the new arrangements than it has done under the
old system.
Q11 Helen Jones: Then why not just
make the code of practice have statutory force? Why are we jumping
through all these hoops?
Ruth Kelly: Because it works pretty
well at the moment.
Q12 Helen Jones: The report from
this Committee decided that it did not work particularly well.
Have you looked at that evidence?
Ruth Kelly: We are constantly
improving. We are consulting on a revised code of practice at
the moment and we want to see how that works. This gives us a
flexible way of incorporating changes into the code of practice,
but the adjudicator is on a statutory footing and can take decisions.
Q13 Mr Wilson: I would like to explore
the issue of trusts but I would like a little background information.
How many have applied for foundation status over the past 12 months?
Ruth Kelly: I do not have that
figure but we have just introduced a fast-track foundation status
which will make it much easier for schools to become foundations
or self-governing schools. In the past it used to be quite difficult
for schools to become foundation schools because they had to publish
statutory proposals and go through quite a bureaucratic procedure.
Not that many have been able to go through the old system.
Q14 Mr Wilson: Correct me if I am
wrong: there was also this earned autonomy status within schools
as well. How many have gone through that process and been successful?
Ruth Kelly: Earned autonomy has
never been used and was overtaken by the power to innovate which
is a much simpler, less bureaucratic mechanism for achieving the
same thing.
Q15 Mr Wilson: How many schools made
it through that process, the new process that replaced earned
autonomy?
Ruth Kelly: Lots of schools used
the power to innovate. It was very widely used on the ground.
Q16 Mr Wilson: You have been pursuing
this towards trust status for a while now. What is the difference
therefore between a foundation status school and a trust school?
What are going to be the different freedoms?
Ruth Kelly: A foundation school
I prefer to call a self-governing school. They are essentially
the same thing but I think self-governing is a much clearer way
of describing what happens. They are self-governing rather than
being community schools. They will have exactly the same freedoms
as foundation schools currently have. They will own their own
assets, employ their own staff and have their own admissions authority
within the code of practice.
Q17 Mr Wilson: There is not much
difference?
Ruth Kelly: We have said that
self-governing schools will then be able to acquire a trust and
that is where the difference comes in. Self-governing schools
use governing body options to draw in an external partner and
will be able to do that and the external partner will be able
to appoint the majority of the governing bodies to provide specific
ethos for schools.
Q18 Mr Wilson: You are also saying
that you want to allow a much wider variety of providers into
the sector: charities, parents and companies to set up schools.
The Government has introduced clauses in 1998, 2002 and 2005 Education
Acts to allow new providers into the system but, as far as I understand
it, only one school has come into the system as a result of those
Acts. The problem has been local authorities, school organisational
committees. Are you going to sweep these away so that the bureaucracy
is removed and these organisations can come into the sector with
a great deal of ease?
Ruth Kelly: We are abolishing
school organisational committees. Their powers will be assumed
by the local authority. The idea is that the local authority takes
the strategic role in the system. This is a very coherent way
of looking at how school improvement and diversity in choice and
access ought to be delivered at the local level. It is by giving
that role to the local authority rather than the school organisational
committee which currently is a representative of vested interests
already on the ground. That is what we are trying to do in the
White Paper.
Q19 Mr Wilson: Under the legislation,
for example, if a school in my constituency wanted to expand and
was supported by teachers, parents and the local community, would
it be a very simple process now for them to do so?
Ruth Kelly: The presumption will
be in favour.
| 
