Examination of Witnesses (Questions 246
- 259)
WEDNESDAY 7 DECEMBER 2005
DR MARY
BOUSTED, MS
JEAN GEMMELL,
MS CHRIS
KEATES AND
MR STEVE
SINNOTT
Q246 Chairman: Good morning. May
I welcome our witnesses today to the Committee. We have tried
to be as accommodating as possible to get as many representative
unions as possible in on this session. You know we are all under
pressure to get this inquiry properly conducted and written up
in time to have some influence on the Bill that will come out
of this White Paper. I hope you will understand that we would
otherwise have given you more time. I would ask everyone, both
our team who will be asking the questions and you who will be
answering the questions, to be reasonably short today, just to
give everyone a chance and not for all four of you to answer each
question. I also bear in mind that we have had very full and very
useful written submissions from all of you as well. We are looking
today for the added value of looking you in the eye and asking
you the questions. I am not going to ask you to make an opening
statement today but suggest that we go straight into questions.
We can accommodate in your answers to the first questions a lengthier
answer because of that. Let us get started. If you were going
to mark this White Paper out of 10—to go back to your teaching
days—how many marks would you give it?
Mr Sinnott: I would have to split
it into two and I would give five for one part and something a
lot lower than five for another part. Quite clearly we have a
whole range of really positive measures in the White Paper dealing
with issues to do with behaviour in schools and there are some
very supportive measures in relation to parents within the White
Paper, but the second part, on issues to do with admissions and
issues to do with choice, I would give a very low mark to indeed.
We believe that they will be detrimental to community cohesion,
detrimental to the interests of some of the youngsters from some
of the most disadvantaged backgrounds. We would have to give a
very low mark to that indeed. I would give a very low mark because
the way in which I operated as a teacher was that I always wanted
to encourage my youngsters to base anything they said upon an
argument that could be sustained and on a good evidential basis.
This White Paper or certainly one half of it has little evidential
basis for some of these very radical proposals it puts forward.
Ms Gemmell: I have to go along
with that answer, inasmuch as the members and council of my association
are wholly sympathetic to the intentions of the White Paper but
are extremely concerned as to how the proposals outlined in it
will achieve those intentions.
Ms Keates: I think I would give
it a higher mark than that simply because for us we have tried
to look past the rhetoric of the headlines and look at what is
actually in it. Quite a lot of the White Paper is about strategies
that have already been announced. They are already in progress,
they build on agreements we have had with the Government, and
we are already in discussions about a lot of the areas and they
are very positive areas. The areas where I have my concerns are
probably similar to those of my colleagues: the issue of the impact
of more autonomy for schools, the introduction of the trusts,
and the whole issue of admissions and how you get a fair and equitable
system of admissions, and also, as a trade union leader, how we
can build in greater potential for the school workforce. Because
we have an enormous evidence base about the impact of autonomy
and greater freedoms for schools and in terms of impact on the
school workforce and their terms and conditions.
Dr Bousted: I would agree with
a lot of that. ATL welcomes the strong commitment in the White
Paper to social justice and to the best education for children
from all abilities and all backgrounds; we welcome the proposals
on discipline; we welcome the proposals for strengthening the
grading and terms and conditions for support staff; and we welcome
a lot of the chapter on personalisation and ensuring that young
people get a curriculum which is fit for them and fit for their
learning needs. But we ask the question: What mechanisms in the
White Paper will secure the Government's ambitions towards social
justice in education? and we remain utterly unconvinced that greater
market forces in education—when education is not a real
market, where pupils and parents are not going to pay—will
simply result in schools, as many currently do, choosing pupils
rather than pupils choosing schools.
Q247 Chairman: Thanks for those introductory
answers. One more question from me before we share the questioning
around. One of the intentions that the Secretary of State and
the Prime Minister announced when this White Paper was launched
was to help the schools in the most deprived areas of our community.
People talk about 30% of pupils/students underachieving. How far
do you think this White Paper will help that sort of underachievement
in those schools with the most deprived communities? Perhaps we
could reverse the order now and start with Jean Gemmell.
Ms Gemmell: My worry is that I
do not know how that will be achieved. My members' concerns are
that, where parental choice is something that you have chosen
in the White Paper to highlight, the pupils who achieve least
in the worst communities are for the most part pupils whose parents
are not used to articulating the sort of choice we are talking
about, and in some cases they would either not know how or their
attitude to education would be such that they would not take part
in or would not get engaged in the sort of activities that the
paper describes as desirable. I am very cynical about that personally
and my cynicism comes from my experience of teaching in an authority
where there were many children who come into the very category
you are talking about. I am embarrassed to have to say that because
the solution has to be found. But I do not feel that my union
or I am in a position to say what would work, and therefore I
am loathe to say "Do not try what you are recommending"
but I am very concerned that inadequate parents will not actually
be in a position to do the job that the paper describes.
Dr Bousted: I think there are
many proposals in this White Paper which will help the 30% most
deprived communities. I think local authorities targeting their
dedicated schools grant on the most challenging schools is a very
important initiative. We also believe the proposals on extended
schools are very, very important, particularly to support the
most vulnerable and disadvantaged children, so that they do not
fall through the net through having a one-stop shop for their
range of complex needs. We also think the proposals on school
discipline will enable teachers and the school community to create
much more orderly communities, and that is bound to be of help
to the most disadvantaged children. But we have real concerns.
We think their proposal for trust schools and the idea that trusts
will spread good practice is Government doing what it said it
would not do in 1997, which is becoming too interested in structures
rather than standards. We cannot answer the question how trust
schools are going to affect the learning opportunities for pupils.
We cannot answer the question how trusts are going to deliver
a better 14-19 curriculum for pupils. And we are concerned that
many of the very, very supportive and strong commitment to social
justice, the ideas in the White Paper, are undermined by the belief
that a quasi-market will improve delivery of education.
Ms Keates: I think the intentions
in the White Paper are absolutely clear, and of course they build
on the Government's focus ever since it came into Government in
1997 to focus on disadvantage which is something that we support.
Mary has touched on most of the main issues: personalisation,
parental engagement. All of those are crucially important. The
extended schools, on a very simple level, can help to address
inequalities around children's access to resource, for example,
to support them with coursework or to help them with homework—because
clearly those are areas where children from disadvantaged backgrounds
do struggle against the better-off pupils. Our concern around
this would be that there is a thrust that independence of schools
somehow helps disadvantage. If you combine that with the admissions
policy, that is where we believe that the Government, unless we
can have detailed discussions and address some of these issues,
is likely to miss the mark on children who will fall through the
net because of school admission policies. Take, for example, the
very laudable proposed change in terms of free transport. It ignores
two basic things: one that in many rural areas there is not that
choice of schools, and, secondly, if that cannot override a school's
individual admission policy, however much it is in the fair code
of practice, those parents are not going to have access. I think
we have to move away from an idea that somehow in a disadvantaged
area you cannot have a good school, because there are plenty of
examples demonstrating that you can. The focus really needs to
be in the local community. We would hope to persuade the Government
to use the very good issues in here to focus on those local disadvantaged
communities.
Mr Sinnott: The issue of dealing
with youngsters from the most disadvantaged backgrounds runs to
the heart, indeed the soul, of what the National Union of Teachers
is about. Indeed, those issues are highlighted in the three documents
that we have published in the last year on educational matters:
Bringing Down the Barriers to Educational Achievement;
Learning to Behave; and our 14-19 Proposals. You
will not find a more committed supporter of the Every Child
Matters agenda and extended schools than the National Union
of Teachers. We are wholeheartedly supportive of that. You will
not find a stronger supporter of personalised learning than the
National Union of Teachers—indeed, I have spoken in previous
select committees about building in entitlements for children
to a variety of educational provision, including personal tutors
for youngsters at different stages of their career. We are wholeheartedly
committed to all of those proposals. But we have evidence of the
impact of a choice and admissions proposal similar to that which
the Government is proposing, and it comes from Sweden. We know
the impact of these proposals in Sweden and they are detrimental
to some areas of our community and they are supportive of some
areas of our community. Who does best out of the Choice
agenda? We know it is the children of those parents who are most
educated. It is those who are in cities. We do know that in Sweden
parallel education systems have been created: an education system
for the articulate and the educated, and an education system for
the others. We believe that the Government's proposals will result
in exactly that type of provision in England. I believe that the
Select Committee should look very, very clearly indeed at the
evidence from Sweden.
Chairman: We will be doing that. We are already
in with that process. Thank you for that, all of you. Now Jeff
Ennis would like to continue with the questioning.
Q248 Jeff Ennis: We have already
had a brief evidence session with the Secretary of State. She
underlined to this Committee that there is very little difference
between the trust school concept and the already existing concepts
of foundation and self-governing schools. She said that the only
reason we are bringing in the concept of a trust school is "to
make it much easier for a school to acquire a trust that wants
to acquire a trust." So there is very little difference as
far as the Secretary of State is concerned between what already
exists and what the new trust school concept is about. Do you
agree with that?
Chairman: Who would like to take that? If you
get first crack at this, you will not get first crack at the next
question.
Dr Bousted: I will take it. At
first sight, that would seem absolutely right. In fact trust schools
would acquire less freedom because foundation schools have a governing
body which is more diverse. In trust schools the governing body
would be largely appointed by the trust. At first sight: What
are the levers in the system? It is a point that John Dunford
made: Why would a head teacher want to go to a trust, because
they would have less authority and they would be more accountable
to a larger section of a governing body over which they would
have little influence? On first reading the answer would seem
to be: Yes, why would you go to a trust school? But then of course
you look at the Office of the Schools Commissioner and we believe
that that is the lever in the system to lever in trusts. We have
real concerns about this office. The first concern we have is
that we think it is inadequately accountable to local democracies,
to local authorities. In the Office of the Schools Commissioner,
the officer will be accountable to the Secretary of State and
to Parliament, so there is no accountability back to the local
communities. The Office for the Schools Commissioner will be a
champion for trusts, doing links between trusts and schools, but
what if a local authority in its coordinating plans for schools
says, "There is no evidence here that parents want a trust
and we think the schools can be organised in different ways. We
want schools to remain within the family of the local authorities"?
Our experience of academies—and we have independent evidence
of this—is that there are huge pressures on local authorities
to put academies into their LAs. We have independent evidence
that authorities have been told, "If you don't have an academy
in your plans, then you will not get your Building Schools
for the Future money and you will be put back on that agenda."
It seems to us that the Office for the Schools Commissioner is
the one real big worry we have in this. If schools really said,
"We want a trust to come in. We think there would be better
governance" and it was a fair playing field, that might be
one thing, but we are very concerned about this Office for the
Schools Commissioner—someone who is unelected, unaccountable
to local democracies, and who knows yet what powers they will
have, because they are inadequately outlined in this White Paper.
That is where NTL has its real concerns.
Q249 Jeff Ennis: One of the main
reasons that the trust school concept is being put forward is
that we want to see more collaborative working between schools.
They say that you get more groups of schools wanting to become
part of a joint trust under these proposals—and better working
between schools is something that I personally support. What is
there within the White Paper that acts as an incentive for schools
to go for that particular joint-working?
Mr Sinnott: I think it is the
opposite. It is the opposite. The White Paper is not about collaboration
but about competition. I am going to emphasise the evidence in
Sweden again. You really do need to look at the evidence from
Sweden, from the national agency that looks at education and looks
at what they did in terms of the Choice agenda. It is very
clear in the evidence from Sweden that the Choice agenda
has resulted in less collaboration between schools. It cannot
be more starkly put than it has been put in the Swedish evidence.
The competition that is engendered by the type of choice and the
market that is engendered by choice result in less collaboration
between schools. It takes me back to what I was saying at the
beginning: this is two White Papers and they are contradictory.
They are contradictory.
Q250 Jeff Ennis: We have already
looked at schools in disadvantaged areas. Another initiative that
they feel this particular White Paper will solve is the concept
of the coasting school. We have obviously targeted schools in
deprived areas quite significantly previously but we have not
targeted what we call the coasting schools, the ones that are
in the middle, in the "doing all right Jack" type of
situation. Will the White Paper target the coasting schools more
effectively?
Ms Keates: First of all, there
is the issue about what the coasting school is and how you are
going to identify the coasting school. I have to say that it is
not a comfortable option for any school in terms of the accountability
structures that are currently in place. I think it is too easy
to categorise schools as coasting or failing and not look at the
circumstances in which those schools are working. I think you
have to look at the accountability structure, and clearly part
of the White Paper is bringing in the new relationship with schools,
which is about getting in school improvement partners who are
there to challenge schools. Those have already been piloted. Schools
seem to have welcomed the approach of people coming externally
and looking at what they are doing. I think there are strategies
that are there to help schools and to help them move towards improvements,
but I also think that expectations of schools have to be realistic.
There are schools in extremely challenging circumstances which
do exceptionally well, but external indicators—and for us
the biggest inhibitors to collaboration are the performance league
tables: we think there is enough accountability in the system
without those—do not recognise what some of those schools
are doing and so they can then be categorised as coasting or not
improving rapidly enough—and the inspection system of course
is raising the bar and the barrier all of the time. I think the
issues are in there. I think I would challenge probably the definition
of schools being coasting and the fact that not enough attention
is paid to some of the struggles that teachers and other members
of the school workforce have in those areas.
Q251 Jeff Ennis: Are our witnesses
concerned about the transfer of assets to trust schools?
Ms Gemmell: When I look at the
paper, I am puzzled as to why schools will want to seek chartered
status. It seems to me that chartered status as indicated in the
White Paper poses more questions than it does answers. I can understand
why schools might want to seek foundation status but chartered
status seems to me to be one which is not going to be encouraging
to schools, particularly the different bodies to which the school
becomes accountable. You have talked about Ofsted and we know
about governing bodies, and if there are going to be parent councils
as well . . . We already have casework from establishments that
are already largely funded by charities where there are issues
between the charities board and the school governors and the LA
and Ofsted. My concern about the whole of the chartered schools
programme is that, although we acknowledge intention, we do not
see why schools would wish to seek it. On the other hand, it is
possible to see why bodies might seek to charter a school. If
that were the case, my perception is that it is likely that they
would seek to charter schools that were currently deemed to be
achieving, innovative and successful, and less likely to wish
to charter schools which are the very ones the White Paper seeks
to help.
Q252 Jeff Ennis: I have one final
question, and I would like quick responses from all of you if
possible. If the Government drop the concept of a trust school
from this White Paper, we have already heard what your scores
would be in terms of out of 10, would that raise the score of
this White Paper in your eyes? Would it make the White Paper more
effective, given all the other positive measures that are in there?
Mr Sinnott: Marginally.
Ms Keates: Yes, it would.
Dr Bousted: Yes, it would.
Ms Gemmell: Yes, it would.
Jeff Ennis: I rest my case, m'Lud!
Q253 Mr Marsden: I want to take you
on to the discipline aspect of the White Paper, because I think
that is the aspect to which you have given a gold star so far,
but I want to press you a bit on what the implications of some
of that are. Discipline is related, as we have heard in other
sessions, and the outcomes of discipline are related sometimes
to decisions about pupils being based either in learning support
units in schools or in pupil referral units outside of schools.
Are you concerned or unclear about what the impact of the White
Paper's proposals in other areas would be for LSUs and PRUs?
Mr Sinnott: I think I am concerned
about a range of aspects of the White Paper. Gordon is correct
in saying that the issues to do with discipline are ones that
I think will be well supported by the teaching profession. I think
the issues to do with the new statutory authority for teachers
to be able to discipline are very, very important indeed. They
are important both in the symbolic nature of that but important
in terms of its impact. The rest of the proposals in the White
Paper will, in my view, result in increased resources needing
to be spent on aspects of our education system that are about
dealing with people who are dropping through the system, people
who are not getting the best out of the system. That, again, is
the experience of other countries. At the same time the evidence
shows that there is increased segregation both socially (that
is, class issues) but also in terms of ethnicity. It is argued
that the impact of the White Paper will be detrimental to the
other positive areas of the White Paper that are to be dealing
with discipline. It is exactly in the areas which are the most
socially disadvantaged that you are more likely to get issues
to do with discipline. You are more likely to get the challenging
behaviour from those areas, and this White Paper does nothing
at all to address properly those issues.
Dr Bousted: Are you talking about
the fact that after five days the local authority then has to
take responsibility for excluded pupils.
Q254 Mr Marsden: Yes, and what is
going to happen under these new proposals.
Dr Bousted: I think local authorities
under these proposals really have to gear up to making sure they
have the facilities and the personnel to accomplish that responsibility.
The one thing we know about children who are excluded from school
is that the longer they are excluded, the more they are likely
to become victims of real and profound social exclusion. We fully
support the measures that after five days' exclusion they go into
a pupil referral unit or a learning support unit. I also believe
that the sooner those children's profound and complex needs—because
often the pupils who are excluded are some of the most disadvantaged
in our society, disadvantaged for a whole range of reasons—are
looked at and dealt with in a more secure and supportive environment,
where there are fewer of them, in a higher adult-to-young person/child
ratio, the more chance there is that they can be reintegrated
into the school community. The longer they are away from school,
at home, perhaps having one or two hours' tuition a day or a week,
the more dislocated they become from their community. We think
five days, and then, if they are not going to be reintegrated
into school, they go to a learning support unit or a pupil referral
unit. That is really important and we are fully supportive of
that.
Q255 Mr Marsden: Could I come back
to this issue of the Schools Commissioner. This may be one on
which Chris and Jean may want to comment, because obviously you
have commented extensively already Mary. There is in many people's
minds, leaving aside the concept of trust schools, a profound
concern about the duality of the role that the Schools Commissioner
has outlined. You could even say that the Schools Commissioner
is expected to be poacher and gamekeeper at the same time. But,
from a practical point of view, assuming you accept the concept,
do you have concerns about the fact that the Schools Commissioner
does not appear to be an independent author or actor on his or
her own behalf?
Ms Keates: I do not think that
is the aspect that concerns me particularly. As we have said in
our evidence to you, we have really gone back to basics on this,
in that we cannot see the rationale for the role. I think that
is why we have real deep concerns, because, as you say, there
is a duality about the champion parents' issue, the trust issue.
For us, the key thing is going to be: What is the regulatory interface
between the Schools Commissioner and local authorities? That will
be the test of what that role is. As a union that sees one of
the benefits of the White Paper as an opportunity at long last
to have a look at the role of local authorities and to get some
clarity and transparency; as a union that is very much in favour
of that local democratic process, for us the key concern is: How
will the Schools Commissioner interface with local authorities
who on the face of it are being given the opportunity to plan
how many schools, what type, what size, where they are? How is
that going to fit with the Schools Commissioner? Is the Schools
Commissioner going to say, "You may think, as a democratically
elected body, that is the way it goes, but actually we think you
should have more trusts, more schools on parental demand"
or whatever. So we do have real concern around that.
Q256 Mr Marsden: Jean, would you
like to come in and perhaps comment also, assuming we have trust
schools, on why the regulatory aspects could not be dealt with
by Ofsted?
Ms Gemmell: I have some difficulty
with some of the answering because my own PAT union council are
meeting on Saturday morning and they are meeting in part to debate
the White Paper. The relationship between the Schools Commissioner
and the LA responsibilities is one that I know concerns them considerably
because they are not clear about it and they are certainly not
clear about how one can adequately be both a champion and—
Q257 Chairman: Would you communicate
with us after your Saturday morning meeting?
Ms Gemmell: Yes, we will. We will
send to you in writing the outcome of that meeting on Saturday
morning.[2]
But the duality of that role, as you put it: gamekeeper and poacher,
is one that is bothering us. Particularly our council is worried
about the LAs role in a good many things in relation to the White
Paper: special needs provision, transport provision, partnerships
with independent schools, faith schools, and the whole responsibility
for excluded pupils.
Q258 Mr Marsden: I would like to
pick up the special educational needs aspect and refer it to the
question of trust schools again. Trust schools, we are told, indeed
schools generally, the Government is pushing to have an expansion
in numbers if they wish them—although we have already heard
Alan Steer say here in the Select Committee on Monday that he
is quite happy with the size of his school and he would not want
it particularly to be expanded. This is perhaps a question for
Mary. Do you have a concern as to what the implications would
be for admission of special educational needs pupils if we had
a trust school concept?
Dr Bousted: Yes, we do. Also,
more widely than that, we have concern that at present schools
are more likely to choose the children than the children the schools.
We do not believe, as Chris has said previously, that the admissions
arrangements are secure or robust enough to ensure that schools
do take their fair share of the hardest to educate children, including
those with special needs. We would like to see admissions codes
being mandatory rather than schools having regard to them. In
the White Paper you get a whole interesting section on banding
and schools which operate banding processes, and this is seen
as a good thing, obviously—it is in the White Paper because
it is seen to be a good thing—and then that is left. That
is a good example and then it is left. It is not endemic, but
we know that certain schools operate practices such as interviewing
parents for the depth of their moral commitment, which means that
working class parents and parents who are less secure to approach
schools will not put their child down for that school because
they are afraid of going through what for them is a very, very
scary process of an interview on their moral commitment. We are
very concerned that the hardest to educate children, including
those with special educational needs, will find they are concentrated
in schools which are seen by the middle class parents as "less
special"—special in a different way.
Mr Sinnott: Look at the evidence.
The evidence is there in the CTCs. The CTCs have a significant
smaller proportion of children with special education needs than
do other maintained schools.
Q259 Mr Marsden: A final brief question
to you, Steve. You have made great play of the NUT's commitment
to personalised learning. There is a lot talked about personalised
learning in the White Paper. It is easy perhaps to criticise.
How would you ensure that the personalised learning, which the
White Paper and the Secretary of State puts its emphasis on, ends
up in delivering an egalitarian outcome rather than a biased outcome
in the way you have expressed concerns? How would you do it, in
other words?
Mr Sinnott: There is a whole range
of ways. I would not mind submitting a separate paper on how we
would do that. It is one of the most positive parts of the White
Paper and one that we wholeheartedly support. I want to underline
that. I think you have to identify it as an entitlement to all
children. It is an entitlement. It should be there as a right.
It should be able to be claimed by youngsters and their parents
at different stages, at some of the key points in a child's educational
career. That is the way I think we would ensure it. At the same
time, schools really do need to ensure that they have the skills
within the schools to be able to deliver it.
2 Not received Back
| 
