Examination of Witnesses (Questions 780
- 799)
MONDAY 19 DECEMBER 2005
RT HON
RUTH KELLY
MP, RT HON
JACQUI SMITH
MP, AND MR
STEPHEN CROWNE
Q780 Mr Chaytor: We saw evidence
last week that placed England, though not the UK as a whole, at
the upper end of the European segregation index in terms of schooling.
At the lower end the least segregated schools were in Scotland
and the Scandinavian countries. Would you envisage that the extension
of choice and diversity in the secondary sector would lead to
greater or lesser segregation in English secondary schools?
Ruth Kelly: It depends what you
mean by choice and diversity. If you are talking about schools
being their own admission authorities—
Q781 Mr Chaytor: Yes, not necessarily
their own admission authorities but the placing of parental choice
at the heart of the system and the creation of different categories
of support, the broad principles that underline the White Paper.
Would you expect this to lead to a narrowing of the segregation
gap?
Ruth Kelly: I expect the package
of measures set out in the White Paper will lead to a narrowing
of the attainment gap.
Q782 Mr Chaytor: A narrowing of the
attainment gap. What about the gap in terms of social, ethnic
or religious segregation?
Ruth Kelly: I think the evidence
that we have so far is that there is no correlation between the
two. I would expect it would be different in different areas according
to which approach they take, but there is no direct correlation.
Q783 Mr Chaytor: You would not anticipate
any change in terms of levels of social segregation as a result
of expansion?
Ruth Kelly: That is not what the
evidence we have suggests to be the case.
Jacqui Smith: If you take the
issue of diversity, which is an interesting one, one of the arguments
that was made by some at the beginning of the real expansion of
the specialist school programme that we have seen was that that
which is undeniably a development of diversity in the system would
in some way or another be detrimental to levels of achievement,
would be detrimental to access to a broader range of opportunities.
Actually, what you have seen is firstly individual school improvement
with quite a lot of evidence that the focus that specialism brings
drive school improvement and increases standards within that school.
You have then seen the ability of schools to use that specialism
to be able to network together so that is an improvement that
is spread throughout the system, and that is part of what we want
to build on in the trust school model. Increasingly, you are seeing,
for example, in 14-19 collaboration that where you have a diverse
range of institutions and they are then brought together to collaborate,
that opens up more opportunities and more choice within the system
than would have been the case had you not had that diversity in
the first place. That is the experience that we are seeing up
until now.
Mr Chaytor: Is there not a tension between your
focus and I think perhaps a new focus on collaboration and the
push towards greater autonomy? When the White Paper was launched
the rhetoric was very largely about the advantages of autonomous
schools and as the weeks have gone by there has been more and
more emphasis on the importance of collaboration and networking.
Q784 Chairman: On the Today
programme it was said it is all about trusts, broad trusts, not
about individual—
Ruth Kelly: He knows his members.
That is the point. I think this is a vehicle for building. The
big change is to safeguard trusts in primary legislation and the
ability for the power to innovate to apply across a network of
schools. We have always had in our mind the idea that schools
will want to enter into voluntary collaborations and have that
formalised by binding and external appointments. That has been
the model that we have used. You can see it applied in the ECM
agenda—Every Child Matters—you can see it in
applied 14-19 and in other contexts as well. What I think is best
that we leave this to local determination.
Jacqui Smith: If you are a strong
and autonomous school, clear about what it is that you are doing
for your students with the funding and the responsibility delegated
in the way in which it has been and in which it will continue
in this White Paper, you are more likely to want to enter into
a collaboration than if what you try and do is find some directive
way in which to drive collaboration. My experience before I came
into this place was that was not the way in which you promote
collaboration, and the experience of the last eight years in relation
to what I said in my previous answer seems to support that argument.
Q785 Mr Chaytor: If you are a strong
and autonomous up to 16 school and you want to open a new sixth
form, does that fit neatly with the 14-19 implementation plan
that you launched last week?
Ruth Kelly: Yes. We consulted
on the criteria to be used for the opening of school sixth forms
a few months ago and we confirmed out intention in guidance last
week. That means that if you are a school that is in the top quartile
of value added schools, so you are a very high performing school,
and you adopt a vocational specialism as your second specialism,
thereby contributing to the 14-19 agenda, you should have the
ability to open a sixth form. The reason behind that is I think
(a) it is very important for schools who are very successful and
have a clear case they can make to contribute to standards in
the area to be able to do so, but (b) we have to build vocational
capacity and this is one way of encouraging schools to go down
that route.
Q786 Mr Chaytor: Will that be subject
to the approval of the local authority and the LSC jointly or
will those schools be so autonomous that—
Ruth Kelly: It is a right.
Q787 Mr Chaytor: It is a right for
the local authority.
Ruth Kelly: I will confirm to
you precisely how it operates. The idea is that schools should
be able to do this because we need to encourage schools to come
forward with proposals so that they can build up vocational capacity.[8]
Q788 Mr Chaytor: Just one last question
on admissions. If in organising the competition for new schools
local authorities will be responsible for establishing the admissions
criteria as part of that competition, does that mean new schools
will not be their own admission authorities?
Ruth Kelly: They will be.
Q789 Mr Chaytor: Are you going to
specify in advance what the criteria are going to be?
Ruth Kelly: Just as on admissions
on a range of issues, in other words how they contribute to the
Every Child Matters agenda, how they work in the 14-19
collaboration, all of these specifications will be set down by
the local authority. In no way is it taking away the freedom that
school has or the autonomy devolution of power to the front line.
Jacqui Smith: It will be part
of the decision making process of the competition to determine
that the admissions arrangements that have to be now set down
in the proposal, which was not previously the case, comply with
the code of admissions. Assuming that they do, and if they do
not the local authority will be able to ensure that they do, they
need to remain in place for at least three years.
Q790 Mr Chaytor: Will the local authorities
set the admissions criteria as part of the rules?
Ruth Kelly: That is a slightly
more complex negotiation actually, as Jacqui has said, as part
of the competitive round before the proposals which the local
authority can accept or reject. The relationship is such that
the local authority adopts the admission arrangements that it
needs to.
Q791 Chairman: One thing that came
out of the last few questions was you are talking about the supply
side in terms of people having choice, it being more flexible,
but we have taken evidence and a lot of schools say, "Get
to a certain size, small is beautiful", or "We are a
successful school, we do not want to get any bigger". How
do you place children? Who places them? Who is responsible for
placing children when there are lots of disappointed parents?
Ruth Kelly: The local authority.
Q792 Chairman: You are not getting
this magic formula for successful schools.
Ruth Kelly: There is no magic
bullet. I completely agree, there is absolutely no magic bullet.
All we can try and do is make every school a good school and allow
preference to operate within that system. The overall objective
is to make every school a good school.
Q793 Chairman: You do not mention
this in the White Paper at all, Secretary of State, the views
that came out in the past, I do not know about very recently,
that Tim Brighouse was associated with and that the Education
Network have recently published, that if you really want to help
the children who have suffered from disadvantage, come from poor
backgrounds, have special educational needs, the best way to help
them is to make them more valuable and if a school takes on a
special educational needs student 50% more or 100% more money
flows in that direction. Has the Department considered those ideas?
Ruth Kelly: Of course, that is
the logic behind the current situation on statementing, which
is an entitlement for a child with special educational needs to
have those met in full with the appropriate resources. For children
who are not statemented there is a variety of level of special
educational need. Personally, I do not think it would make sense
to try and specify exactly how much money and what resources,
time and effort and so forth should be attached on average.
Q794 Chairman: What if you got more
money if your student was from a poorer background?
Jacqui Smith: To a certain extent,
of course, both through the way in which we distribute the dedicated
schools grant, as it is now, and previously through the schools
funding formula, and through the way in which at a local level
the funding formula works, there is already an element of recognition
for specific needs for deprivation. The system works in that way.
Q795 Chairman: It does not shake
up the system in the way that some of these proponents are saying,
"If there is real value in that pupil then the pupil would
be much more readily accepted". Many of the schools seem
to find ways of keeping them out.
Ruth Kelly: I think we take a
decisive step forward in that direction in the White Paper with
our proposals for resources to be attached to children who have
the lowest prior attainment when entering secondary school. In
the recent allocation of funding approved by the Department to
individual local authorities, we have explicitly attached a very
significant element of funding, I think it is £335 million,
to support that agenda, which is about £100,000 on average
per secondary school. If you are talking about a really radical
step forward in supporting children with additional needs then
I think there is one.
Q796 Chairman: You would expect me
to ask this, Secretary of State, because it is an old hobbyhorse
of mine. You and the Prime Minister often make speeches about
the dreadful situation that so many young people in this country
drop out of education at 16 and go into jobs without training,
they go into unemployment, and you did in your opening today.
There is nothing in the White Paper about what we are going to
do for that category of young people.
Ruth Kelly: In my first few weeks
in this job I published a White Paper on the 14-19 agenda which
was all about trying to increase the staying on rate and dealing
with the challenges of the group which are not in education, employment
or training, which I know you have particular concerns on and
we continue to work on that agenda. One of the most significant
things we can do is drive up standards in all schools and support
and tailor provision to meet their needs in the early years of
secondary school.
Q797 Chairman: The Minister of State
was amused about that.
Jacqui Smith: Then we followed
that up last week with the 14-19 implementation plan, which I
am sure you have read.
Q798 Chairman: We have. But it does
not join up with the White Paper, does it?
Ruth Kelly: I think if you read
the White Paper, the 14-19 agenda runs through it.
Q799 Chairman: Clarity and joined-upness.
Can I say that this has been a very good session, we have gone
over time and it has been a long time to keep you answering questions.
We have learned a lot and we will go away and write up our recommendations.
We shall have the recess to do that and think about it. I hope
we can be helpful in the process of making this White Paper even
better than it is at the moment.
Ruth Kelly: I invite the Committee
if there are any follow-up questions which emerge during consideration
of the evidence you have taken so far, if the Committee wants
to write to us we will be very happy to deal with any questions.
Chairman: We will take you up on that. Thank
you.
8 Ev 167 Back
| 
