Conclusions and recommendations
Higher Standards, Better Schools for All
1. We
note that, by taking one type of foundation school and giving
it a new name and a high profile, the Government has managed to
make a cause celébrè out of something which already
exists and for which no further legislation is apparently necessary.
(Paragraph 19)
2. The Secretary of
State told us that "This White Paper is all about driving
up standards for the most disadvantaged children" and we
shall take this as the measure on which to judge the White Paper.
(Paragraph 20)
Behaviour
3. We
welcome both the Practitioners' report and the Government's response
to it. (Paragraph 27)
4. A Practitioners'
Group of this kind could prove extremely effective in helping
to spread best practice across schools on other issues and we
hope the success of this venture will encourage the DfES to use
this mechanism again. (Paragraph 30)
Personalisation
5. The
DfES needs to provide more detail on its plans for funding personalised
learning, and in particular how it will ensure that funding is
used for its intended purpose. The department also needs to give
much more careful consideration to the changes in Initial Teacher
Training and the amount of in-service training which will be required
to make personalised learning a reality. (Paragraph 33)
6. We welcome the
Government's proposals to provide more individually tailored education.
These policies, directed at what actually happens in classrooms,
are as important as anything in the White Paper. These proposals
could directly and beneficially affect every child at school in
England, and we look forward to seeing how matters develop in
practice. (Paragraph 35)
7. If the Government
wishes to address educational disadvantage, it needs to take seriously
the problem of the under-representation of minority ethnic groups
in the gifted and talented programme to ensure that implementation
of its policy does guard against stereotypes and unintended consequences.
(Paragraph 36)
8. Their needs also
have to be specifically addressed in personalised learning. (Paragraph
37)
9. At the least, this
evidence suggests that the case for further setting is not proven,
and we welcome the Government's intention to publish independent
research into current best practice. (Paragraph 39)
Workforce and leadership development
10. We
recommend that detailed consideration be given to training teachers
for the most challenging schools and to ways of supporting them
in their teaching career. (Paragraph 44)
11. We recommend that
the Government looks urgently at setting a minimum entitlement
in teachers' timetables, particularly in primary schools, for
continuing personal development and such training. (Paragraph
44)
12. Although Trust
schools are promoted in the White Paper as a radical innovation
in school governance, it is important to note that these freedoms
and flexibilities are already available to schools under the power
to innovate under section 2 of the Education Act 2002. (Paragraph
47)
13. No causal link
has been demonstrated between external partners and the success
of a school, or between the independence of a school from local
authority control and its success. (Paragraph 50)
14. We recommend that
the Government should publish a list of bodies it considers appropriate
to act as Trust sponsors. It should also publish details of those
organisations which have been approved by the DfES. (Paragraph
55)
15. We believe it
is essential that Trusts do operate in a collaborative fashion
and that Government embeds in any legislation requirements for
this to be monitored at local and national level. (Paragraph 57)
16. If Trusts are
formed, it should be a requirement that all parent governors on
a Trust school governing body should be elected by parents of
children at the school. (Paragraph 59)
17. We recommend,
therefore, the model of a federation of two or more schools as
the preferred option for the development of the Trust school concept.
(Paragraph 63)
18. Given the Secretary
of State's statement that schools will not be bribed or coerced
into becoming Trust schools, and given the lack of enthusiasm
we have found in the course of the inquiry for schools to become
Trusts, we believe that the Schools Commissioner should perform
a much less executive role in relation to the promotion and establishment
of Trust schools than suggested in the White Paper. (Paragraph
65)
19. We therefore recommend
that the Schools Commissioner should not be or remain a serving
DfES civil servant after appointment and indeed that it might
be useful for Government to seek an appointee from outside DfES.
The Commissioner should be established at arm's length from the
Department reporting to Parliament through the Select Committee
as well as to ministers in DfES. This will be essential to enable
her or him to operate in a more independent manner and enjoy the
confidence of all parties concerned. (Paragraph 65)
20. Becoming a Trust
school may be attractive to some schools, and the DfES should
advise and assist those who wish to do so, but it should be one
option in a pluralist schools system. The promotion of Trust schools
should not be an overriding policy objective. (Paragraph 66)
21. We urge Government
to have due regard to these concerns and to implement mechanisms
in the Bill to allay them. We make some recommendations to this
effect later on. (Paragraph 68)
22. There is no reason
why a local authority should not put forward a proposal for a
new community school when a competition for a new school is to
be held, (Paragraph 69)
23. We see this diversity
as a strength rather than a weakness, as long as all maintained
schools abide by common rules on admissions, fair access and social
composition. (Paragraph 70)
Local authorities
24. We
recommend, therefore, that all publicly funded schools should
be given the same legal responsibilities in this respect. (Paragraph
75)
Every Child Matters
25. We
welcome the fact that Ofsted, under its new inspection regime,
is assessing schools against the five Every Child Matters outcomes,
but that still does not ensure that schools will co-operate with
other agencies. A formal duty for schools to co-operate would
put the matter beyond doubt and we recommend that the Government
should legislate for that duty in the forthcoming Bill. (Paragraph
78)
Local authorities as commissioners
26. Since
the introduction of local management of schools under the Education
Reform Act 1988, local authorities have not had control of schools
in the way the White Paper implies and some of its critics believe.
(Paragraph 79)
27. The Bill needs
to be drafted to ensure that where there continues to be provision
of education through community schools, local authorities are
able to provide support as now. This also fits with our earlier
recommendation that local authorities should be able to propose
the establishment of a new community school in a competition for
a new school. (Paragraph 80)
28. It appears that
local authorities will be even more central to education provision
in their areas that is the case now. (Paragraph 82)
29. If authorities
cannot have reasonable confidence in the long-term viability of
some of their schools, or if they no longer are in charge of the
assets of schools because of a change in status, how can they
plan for the future, and how can they reasonably be expected to
undertake long-term financial commitments? Is there a need for
Trusts to own their assets in order to be effective? Could they
lease them from the local authority? We expect the Government
to issue guidance on the issues raised as a matter of urgency
to ensure that PFI projects in the Building Schools for the Future
programme are not adversely affected as well as to ensure that
public assets are protected in the long term. (Paragraph 83)
Choice, diversity and fair access
30. We
are firmly of the opinion that fair access should take top priority,
followed by choice and diversity respectively. There is growing
concern and a body of evidence about the relationship between
school admissions and levels of social segregation and schools
need to show that they are aware of their responsibilities to
their communities in general as well as to the children whom
they admit. We propose that a new duty be placed on all schools
to promote social inclusion and community cohesion through all
of their institutional policies and procedures, including their
admissions policies. (Paragraph 85)
31. We recommend that
Trust schools should be given the duty to spread good practice
and demonstrate collaboration across the local authority area,
and that their performance in this regard should be monitored
by local authorities, who would report to the Schools Commissioner
to produce an annual report to Parliament and to DfES. (Paragraph
86)
32. We recommend therefore
that Trust schools and others be given the duty to operate equitable
admission policies for children with special educational needs
across the local authority area, and that the performance of schools
in this regard should be monitored by local authorities, who would
report to the Schools Commissioner to produce an annual report
to Parliament and to DfES. (Paragraph 87)
Helping people exercise choice
33. There
has been criticism of some aspects of this proposal, but for poorer
families choice without mobility is no choice. (Paragraph 93)
34. We ask the Government
to examine the case for index-linking this funding to inflation
and to ensure that its effectiveness—and the possible need
substantially to increase it—is monitored by an external
body. (Paragraph 93)
Constraints on choice
35. Until
such time as the distribution of able and well motivated pupils
between schools is better balanced, and the vast majority of
schools are considered by parents to be of acceptable quality,
there are likely to be schools that are regularly oversubscribed.
The aim must be to ensure that the admissions process is as fair
and transparent as possible. We therefore recommend that the Government
looks at the possibility of introducing anonymised admissions.
(Paragraph 96)
36. The goal should
be to achieve the best combination of a diverse range of schools
with equitable capital and revenue funding, balanced intakes
and a scrupulously fair and transparent admissions process monitored
by the local authority and admissions forum in each area and (we
suggest later in the report) by the Schools Commissioner nationally.
(Paragraph 97)
Pupil funding
37. We
recommend that the Government should develop with local authorities
a system to direct additional funding at individual pupils from
disadvantaged backgrounds wherever they live, possibly using local
funding formulae. (Paragraph 102)
Planning social provision
38. There
is clearly a vital role here for local authorities in planning
provision. They must retain sufficient powers to manage the process
and balance pressure from parents and schools to expand. There
is a danger that a poorly managed choice agenda could accelerate
the flight from schools in deprived areas. This would further
disadvantage those who are already disadvantaged in education.
(Paragraph 103)
39. We recommend that
the Government publishes a costing of the surplus places that
may arise because of this demographic change. (Paragraph 106)
The admissions process
40. Our
concern is that there must be a Code of Practice which can be
enforced. There must be effective oversight of the Code and effective
sanctions when the Code is breached (Paragraph 113)
The current proposals
41. The
larger the number of schools with different arrangements for dealing
with oversubscription the greater the problems some parents may
have in predicting the outcome of any preferences they express.
(Paragraph 114)
42. The concern is
that, without changes to the admissions process, if more schools
act as their own admissions authorities they will use that power
to choose pupils who are likely to perform well academically.
(Paragraph 116)
43. It is clear from
other evidence, however, that there are legitimate concerns that
some schools are using over-subscription criteria to mould the
nature of their intakes to maximise the number of pupils who are
thought likely to perform well academically or to be "easy
to teach". It is also clear that this tends to mean that
pupils eligible for free school meals are less likely to be accepted
for those schools. (Paragraph 119)
44. It is unhelpful
for the Secretary of State to cite evidence from an unfinished
research project in support of one of the Government's proposals
without being prepared to make the detail of that evidence available
to us. (Paragraph 123)
45. We accept that
the Code cannot simply be made a set of mandatory rules; it is,
after all, a document offering guidance. (Paragraph 127)
46. We recommend that
the Government should bring forward regulations to prohibit interviewing
or other proxies for academic selection as a part of the general
schools admissions process as soon as possible. (Paragraph 127)
47. The situation
concerning partial selection has been contentious for some time
and we believe that the legislation should be amended to clarify
what is and is not allowed. (Paragraph 128)
48. We referred earlier
to the recommendations of our previous reports on selection by
aptitude. The Government no longer collects data on the extent
of such selection and justifies it largely on the grounds that
few schools use it. We have not yet been presented with a credible
explanation of the distinction between aptitude and ability.
This is most unsatisfactory and we believe aptitude selection
should now be prohibited in regulations. We also recommend that
the DfES re-examines the current Code of Practice to identify
what other practices should be more closely regulated, prohibited
or, conversely, encouraged. (Paragraph 129)
49. There remains
the question of those schools which are specifically permitted
by the 1998 Act to select wholly by academic ability. Our previous
report dealt with this issue in some detail and we wish to reiterate
our recommendations. We welcome the fact that that there is now
all party agreement that there should be no new selection by general
academic ability. (Paragraph 130)
50. The Government
has consulted on a new Code of Practice, but has put it on hold
while it considers the responses. We believe that, in the light
of our recommendations, the Government should reconsider what
the Code should contain and its fitness for purpose, and consult
again before implementation. (Paragraph 131)
Local authorities to monitor admissions arrangements
51. Local
authorities and admissions forums would be required to monitor
closely local admissions arrangements for compliance with the
Code of Practice, to make an objection to the adjudicator about
any which did not comply and to make an annual report on behalf
of the admission forum to the Schools Commissioner. (Paragraph
133)
52. If, within six
weeks of being informed of the conclusions of the admissions forum,
the school or schools in question did not amend their proposed
admission arrangements accordingly, the local authority would
be required to make an objection to the schools adjudicator (at
present, the admissions forum cannot itself object to the adjudicator).
(Paragraph 136)
53. We consider that
giving local authorities the duty to monitor the system locally
is the most effective way to ensure that the admissions process
is fair, as the Government wishes it to be. In particular, we
consider that it addresses the argument that more admissions authorities
mean more covert selection by ability. However many admissions
authorities there are, the key to equity is rigorously enforced
fair admissions practices. (Paragraph 137)
54. This process would
fit well with one change that the Government is proposing to the
admissions process, namely to make the adjudicator's decisions
binding for three years rather than one year as at present. We
welcome this change. This is also the fixed period the Government
is suggesting for the admission arrangements of new schools. This
time limit has been criticised in the context of new schools,
but there is a logic in having the same time frame for new and
existing schools, and if the Government makes it a duty on local
authorities to monitor admissions arrangements and to make an
objection where the Code is not being observed, we believe the
system would be sufficiently robust. (Paragraph 139)
Social composition of schools
55. One
way to address the low representation of children from deprived
backgrounds in some schools would be for local authorities to
set benchmarks for the secondary schools in their areas for the
numbers of children on free school meals or whose families are
in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit admitted to Year 7 each
year. Each local authority would also be required to make a report
annually to the Schools Commissioner on the social composition
of secondary schools. In turn the Schools Commissioner would report
annually on the position across the country, but should also have
sanctions where it appears that schools or authorities are not
addressing these issues of inequality. (Paragraph 141)
56. We recommend that
the DfES works with other government Departments and those outside
Government to construct more sophisticated measures of deprivation
and disadvantage. (Paragraph 143)
Trust schools
57. We
have established that these are not a new concept; the Government
has re-branded one type of foundation school and sought to promote
it as the way forward for schools. Much more detail and clarity
is needed on the process involved in becoming a Trust school,
which the Trust Schools prospectus does not provide. If the Government
wants to allay fears about how Trust schools will operate, it
needs to provide this detail and clarity as soon as possible (Paragraph
155)
58. We recommend that
the Government looks at this issue again with a view to establishing
much greater safeguards on the transfer of assets to Trusts through
detailed restrictions on disposal of assets and other issues
or by a leasehold-style arrangement. (Paragraph 157)
Local authorities
59. Rather
than having their role reduced, local authorities have significant
and even increased responsibilities. (Paragraph 158)
60. It is imperative
that schools work with local authorities and other agencies on
Every Child Matters and we recommend that schools be given the
formal duty to co-operate on these issues. (Paragraph 159)
61. We therefore recommend
that when a competition for a new school is held, a local authority
should have the right to put forward a proposal for a new community
school. (Paragraph 160)
Admissions
62. We
recommend that the Secretary of State brings forward as soon as
possible new regulations to bar the use of interviewing in the
admissions process. We also recommend that the DfES examines the
Code to see whether any other provisions might also be the subject
of regulations. (Paragraph 161)
63. We recommend that
under the forthcoming legislation all local authorities should
be given the statutory duty to monitor admissions practices in
their areas and make an objection to the Schools Adjudicator where
it appears they do not comply with the Code. (Paragraph 162)
64. We welcome the
Government's decision to increase the length of time for which
the Adjudicator's decisions are binding from one year to three
years. We consider that this, together with the duty on local
authorities to police the process systematically, will make the
admissions process considerably more effective. (Paragraph 163)
65. We recommend that
local authorities be required to provide benchmarks for each of
the secondary schools in their areas for the number of pupils
they should be admitting in Year 7 eligible for free school meals
or working families tax credit. They should make annual reports
to the Schools Commissioner, who in turn should report to Parliament
through this select committee. (Paragraph 164)
66. Taken together,
these recommendations on admissions and social composition, giving
new duties to the Schools Commissioner, empowering local authorities
and strengthening the Code of Practice with regulations provide
the effective practical means to ensure that the Government's
aspirations on fair access can be realised. (Paragraph 165)
Choice
67. We
recommend that the Government develops its proposal to provide
extra funding to those areas with the lowest levels of prior attainment
by pupils entering secondary school by seeking a means of providing
extra funding for individual pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.
(Paragraph 167)
In-school reforms
68. In
the end the form of governance of a school is less significant
in determining the attainment of its pupils than the nature of
its pupil intake and the quality of teaching and leadership. (Paragraph
170)
69. Schools need to
have a sound structure of governance and accountability, and this
can take more than one form, but in the end it will be what happens
in schools, whatever their designation, that will decide whether
the attainment of disadvantaged children in our school system
will be improved. (Paragraph 170)
| 
