 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords] |
Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris
Shaw, Mick Hillyard, Committee
Clerks † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 1 July 2008(Afternoon)[Mr. Hywel Williams in the Chair]Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords]Clause 19Visits
to children in long-term
care Question
proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the
Bill. 4
pm Question
again
proposed.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and
Families (Kevin Brennan): I appreciate that we will
probably have further discussions about the topics relating to clause
19 when we get to the new clauses. I am sure that no one on the
Committee has any particular problem with this clause and, therefore,
propose that it stand part of the Bill.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 19
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 20Designated
member of staff at school for pupils looked after by a local
authority Tim
Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): I beg to move
amendment No. 17, in clause 20, page 16, line 4, leave out from
‘designate’ to ‘as’ in line 5 and
insert— ‘(i) at least one
member of the teaching staff at the school
(“the designated person”); and, additionally and
separately, (ii) at least one
member of the governing body who is not a
teacher’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 28, in clause 20, page 16, line 5, after
‘school’, insert ‘who is a qualified
teacher’. No.
18, in
clause 20, page 16, line 6, after
‘achievement’, insert
‘, and for reporting the
educational progress to the foster carer or other appropriate
carer,’. No.
29, in
clause 20, page 16, line 6, after
‘achievement’, insert ‘and
well-being’. No.
30, in
clause 20, page 16, line 11, at
end insert— ‘( ) The
governing body must designate a member of the
governing body (“the designated
governor”) as having responsibility for oversight of the
provision made under subsection
(1). ( ) The governing body
must ensure that the designated governor is provided with all relevant
information to assist him in the discharge of his
functions.’.
Tim
Loughton: Here we are dealing with an old bugbear
regarding schooling and the relationship of children in care to their
teachers. Many of us have said for some time that there are two main
groups of children for whom special provisions need to be made, aside
from those who have learning disabilities and obvious requirements like
that, and they are children in the care system and young carers. The
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I have slaved our way
down to the Southampton to the annual young carers festival for some
time.
Kevin
Brennan: While the hon. Gentleman is on that point he
might like to know that last Saturday I went as
well.
Tim
Loughton: We were delighted to hear that because, as we
have pointed out, we had not had a Labour Minister or MP down there for
some time—I am not trying to be critical—although we used
to when the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North
Poole I started doing the MPs’ question time at the
children’s request. It was great to hear. I am sure that the
Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the hon.
Member for Cardiff, West was appreciated and that he enjoyed it as well
because it is always extraordinary. That is entirely out of order,
Mr. Williams, because it is not the question in
hand. There
are two groups of pupils for whom special attention and recognition by
a key member of staff is essential. The group germane to the Bill are
looked-after children. Clause 20 includes designating a member of staff
to be the key link for looked-after children. My problem is that
subsection (1) refers only
to “a
member of the staff at the
school” being
the designated person. The intention and direction of the clause is
right but it is not good enough because the designated person could be
a school caretaker, a games assistant or somebody like
that—perfectly worthy individuals though they may be. To take
the problems seriously, we think that a properly qualified member of
the teaching staff must become the designated person. It needs to be
somebody who understands the educational requirements of that child,
who can communicate with other teachers, the head teacher and governors
on an equal basis and who has
authority. Children
in the care system obviously have particular educational needs. As we
have heard from the statistics that have been bandied about, they are
much more likely to do badly at school, not least because of the lack
of continuity in their education. There are also problems with the
image of looked-after children’s poor achievement and outcomes,
so some schools would prefer not to have them because it may bring down
their averages. Those are considerations that looked-after children
have to face. It is therefore absolutely right that special provisions
be made by a school to ensure that the special needs of looked-after
children are recognised and taken on board at the highest level within
those
schools. That
may mean that the school must chase the responsible social worker, if
that responsible social worker is not performing the role of a
“pushy parent” that I would like to see them play. A
child who happens to be in the care system is entitled to no lesser
degree of attention from the responsible person or body, which could be
a social worker, as he or she would get from a responsible
parent. That could mean turning up to parents
evenings demanding to know why the child is lagging behind, for
example, or expressing concerns about bullying or liaising with the
school on a whole host of matters. Clearly, because of the pressures on
social workers, which we have previously discussed, a social worker may
not be in a position to play as active a role in overseeing a
child’s education as one might like.
I have
mentioned innovative authorities such as Barnet that have introduced a
buddy system, whereby an officer of the authority will buddy up with a
looked-after child. One of their roles will be to look at their school
report and to monitor their educational progress and, if necessary,
ring up the school and say “What is going wrong here?” It
would be helpful if there is a designated teacher who will be their
first point of call, be that for a social worker or an extended family
member whom one wants to encourage to have an interest in the
child’s progress.
Therefore,
the clause is to be welcomed, but it needs to be beefed up, hence
amendment No. 17 states that a member of the teaching staff must be the
designated person. However, the amendment goes further: the second part
of it would provide for a responsible governor. The measure applies to
young carers and many of us have argued for it before. Recognising the
teacher so that they feel that they have the clout to argue the case
for looked-after children would be greatly improved and enhanced by
introducing a separate, responsible governor, someone other than the
teacher—as it stands the designated person could be the teaching
representative on the governing body—to oversee the provisions
for looked-after children. They would be the line manager, as it were,
for the designated teacher. That would send out a clear signal to
schools that the special requirements of looked-after children, which
result from the fact that educational outcomes for looked-after
children have been a scandal for too many years, are a priority and
that schools need to have a structure in place that can cope with that
and make it a reality. Amendment No. 17 would ensure that a properly
qualified teacher, in partnership with a governor, are directly
responsible for overseeing the fortunes of children in the care system
who attend their schools.
Amendment
No. 18 specifies that there should also be a responsibility for both
those individuals to report
“the
educational progress to the foster carer or other appropriate
carer”. Another
flaw in the system is that, too often, it is difficult to get
information out of the school on how a child is actually doing,
particularly foster carers. If a foster carer is doing his or her job
properly, as the vast majority of them fortunately do, and if we expect
a foster carer to be as close to a natural parent as possible and to
play the role of a birth parent, which could include being a
“pushy parent” when it comes to asking questions about
whether a child is doing well at school, we should ensure that they
automatically have an entitlement to know about the performance of the
child at school, receive reports and hold a conversation with the
relevant teachers or whoever on an established basis, so that they are
fully informed about the child’s school progress. They will then
be able to ask all the right questions. At the moment that does not
happen in many
cases. Amendments
Nos. 17 and 18 would require that there be designated teachers who know
about the requirements of looked-after children, a governor to oversee
that and
that foster carers should have access to educational information about
the child. They would then be able to ensure that they were doing well
and ask the right questions if they were not. Such requirements would
add some real beef to the well intentioned clause. They would make its
provisions a reality rather than the wish list that they might become.
I have some sympathy for the amendments that are being advocated by the
Liberal Democrats in a similar vein. On that basis, I commend
amendments Nos. 17 and 18 to the
Committee. Angela
Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): I wish to speak briefly in
support of amendments Nos. 17 and 18. The two secondary schools for
which I am governor have extremely good pastoral care departments. I
have asked a number of head teachers in my constituency how many
looked-after children they have on their rolls. Most of them said none,
but they did not say they did not know. I am assuming that there is a
very good process between social services and education departments so
that schools are always aware if they have looked-after children on
their
rolls. It
is important that somebody is available for a looked-after child. When
they arrive in school, they are more likely to be having a crisis day
than the average pupil. There are more opportunities for stress and
more things that will concern them. If only one teacher is designated
to be a friend, adviser and mentor to a looked-after child, it is not
possible for them to be available at every moment. It is not possible
for them to be available when the child arrives in school every
morning. If two teachers are designated, it is more likely that
somebody will be available to take control of a crisis. If a governor
is also designated, although they are in school only from time to time,
there is an extra option for that
child. It
is important that children have an adult to whom they can relate.
Personality and character come into that. If they relate to one of the
three designated people and feel more comfortable opening up and
disclosing personal problems to them, they are likely to disclose more
than if only one of the other designated people was available. It is
therefore a very good idea that there be two or even three people
available to a looked-after child if they are having a bad day or if
there is an ongoing problem that the school needs to be aware
of. Amendment
No. 18 includes reporting educational progress. With most children,
parents will come to the school on parents’ evening, which is an
annual occasion. If they have problems in between those events, they
will get in contact with the class teacher or the head teacher. With
looked-after children, there is more potential for social problems that
could affect their educational progress so more frequent access to the
school is a huge advantage. More frequent access to school, more
discussion and more reporting on their educational progress could head
off other social problems that are brewing up in the background that
adults are not aware
of. My
understanding is that the number of such pupils in any one school will
be very small so this will not be an onerous task in addition to the
great number of functions that teachers have to perform. Most of my
schools had good pastoral care departments and would be only too
pleased to take on this role. It will be hugely advantageous to the
looked-after children in our schools. It will not only maximise their
aspiration and their ambition to succeed, and give them the best
possible future and
opportunities for training, further education and a
productive career, it will safeguard their emotional
well-being.
Mark
Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): I very much want to endorse
what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said and the
practical case studies highlighted by the hon. Member for Upminster.
The first point I want to make concerns clarity. I welcome the thrust
of the clause, but, as has already been said, does it go far enough? On
Second Reading, the Minister for Children, Young People and Families,
the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston
said: “Clause
20 will make sure that there is a designated teacher in every school to
give children in care the encouragement and personal support they need
to realise their talents.”—[Official Report, 16
June 2008; Vol. 477, c.
727.] Yet,
here we are talking about a designated member of staff. That could be
the caretaker, a games assistant and a range of individuals who work
within the school community. Amendment Nos. 17 and 28 specify that it
must be a member of the teaching staff or a qualified teacher. That is
essential because it gives status to looked-after children. It is also
about the practicalities of delivering those expectations of
educational achievement and the needs of pastoral care, the
child’s well-being, which amendment No. 29 seeks to
pursue.
Amendment
No. 29 seeks to build into the Bill the obvious point about holistic
care and support for looked-after children. The Barnardo’s 2006
report, “Failed By The System”, revealed that 79 per
cent. of young people who have been in care have no GCSEs or other
educational qualifications when they leave school. But academic
achievement and pastoral needs within the school community go hand in
hand. One cannot separate the two.
Half of the
young people in the Barnardo’s survey revealed that they had
been bullied. Half the group had attended six or more schools; 11 per
cent had attended more than 10 schools; 39 per cent. said that no one
had attended a school parents’ evening; 48 per cent. said that
nobody attended their sports days or school events. Educational
achievement and self esteem go hand in hand. With the visitor
provisions we talked about this morning, with a designated teacher
clearly undertaking that pastoral role and with a link to foster
carers, social workers or whoever, we can meet some of those
challenges. If we get to the root of the self esteem issue
educationally, we can move on and tackle many of the educational
challenges. Mr.
Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con): I agree with
everything that has just been said. It is important to emphasise that
the partial aspect of the care plays a significant role in the general
well-being of looked-after children within educational establishments.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the designated teacher also has the
responsibility to ensure that the mental and behavioural well-being of
the child in the school is part of their training? A growing number of
looked-after children unfortunately suffer from an attachment disorder.
Teachers should be aware of that and be trained to ensure that when
they are dealing with each individual child they can assess those needs
and feed that into their pastoral care. That will then improve their
educational outcomes.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 2 July 2008 |