Mark
Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I very much agree.
As someone who endured a one-year course for a postgraduate certificate
in education, I can testify to the limitations of teacher training in
all areas of special needs and some of the behavioural problems that he
has
identified. I
hesitate to use the phrase “narrow educational
achievement”, but I do not want the well-being of the child to
be lost in a welter of percentages and academic targets. They go
together. It should also be said that the needs of looked-after
children are not always special educational needs. Yes, 28 per cent. of
looked-after children have SEN statements, compared to 3 per cent. of
the population, but we should not automatically assume, as the hon.
Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) said on Second Reading, that the
SENCO should necessarily assume the role of a co-ordinator for
looked-after
children. I
pay tribute to the fact that the Bill wisely mentions, under clause
20(3), that the governing body will ensure that the designated
person—a teacher, I hope—has qualifications and
experience, a point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. If
that role is to be effective, it requires a full awareness of the
child’s background and circumstances as well as the operation of
the care system. As a novice to these Committee proceedings, I find
that the matter involves a welter of information of which I suspect
many teachers are unaware, but which they need to be aware of when
working with such children.
Amendment
No. 30, in line with the provisions on SENCOs and special needs
governors, would give looked-after children the same status by making a
governor responsible for them. It is a chain of responsibilities: the
teacher is responsible and accountable to the governor, and the
governor is also equipped with appropriate training and advice.
Although our names are not on amendment No. 18, I support its spirit.
It is an acknowledgement that educational achievement cannot be viewed
just within the confines of the classroom; it must be extended to the
home environment and the person charged with care.
The hon.
Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised the spectre of schools
summoning social workers to hear about the educational progress or
problems of particular children. It is important. Many of us have sat
through countless special educational needs consultations with parents
who refused to turn up, wishing that we had the capacity to bring them
in. The amendment is laudable. It would build dialogue between carers
and the children in
school. Above
all else, the amendments are not about giving another member of staff
or a governor a meaningless title. They are about acknowledging the
needs of 60,000 children and young people and giving the school
community the structure to support them educationally
and—critically—pastorally, so that their educational and
social entitlements can be met.
Annette
Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I shall be
brief, as my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have made clear points.
I refer to the situation discovered by the Education Select Committee.
In some schools, SENCOs were teaching assistants. The Education and
Inspections Act 2006 or resulting regulations stated
that SENCOs should be qualified teachers;
personally, I feel that they should also be members of the senior
management
team. It
is important that we understand why the Bill does not say “a
member of the teaching staff”. I suspect that there is a reason
for that, but it is important to understand why. I want particularly to
specify that it should be a fully qualified teacher. As my hon. Friend
explained, it is such an important job. It involves a mix of guiding
through academic routes and trying to improve academic
performance, but it also involves looking after the welfare of the
child and addressing the various other needs that must be addressed
before academic achievement can be
attained. I
shall refer briefly to some good practice in Dorset. I attended a
Dorset awards day for foster carers and children a couple of weeks ago
at which I was involved in presenting certificates. It demonstrated a
close working between the teachers in school, the local authority and
foster carers. The latter were there with the children, and the
certificates that I handed out were varied. One was for 100
per cent. attendance at the learning support centre. Another was for
100 per cent. attendance over the previous term. Some were for academic
achievements in their GCSEs; others were for behaving well at home and
helping around the house. It was a complete mix, but awarding and
celebrating progress in the lives of those foster children
brought all the services together quite beautifully and skilfully. A
good day was had by all, as the rest of the day was a fun day with lots
of entertainment. I mention that practice because it is worthy of being
adapted by other local authorities.
Tim
Loughton: We are heaping praise on Dorset. I seem
to recall that Dorset piloted the giving of bursaries to children in
the care system for particular education-related studies—for
instance, more music lessons. That gave the authority control over its
budget that it would not normally have had to allow pupils to pursue a
subject in which they showed artistic, musical or educational promise.
That was another example of good practice by
Dorset.
Annette
Brooke: I was very pleased that Dorset was selected for
the 18-to-21 pilots. It is obviously is good practice, and we should
share it whenever we can. I support all the
amendments.
Kevin
Brennan: I agree with the hon. Lady on the importance of
having fun days, with lots of entertainment —which is obviously
what we are having today.
The
intention behind this small flourish of amendments to clause 20 is to
ensure that the role of the designated person specified for children in
a maintained school has the maximum impact. I sympathise with that
intention. We should consider our history in trying to improve
educational outcomes for looked-after children when discussing the
amendments.
The clause
goes back to the Quality Protects initiative of 1998, which started our
focus on improving the educational outcomes for looked-after children
both locally and nationally. We know much more about the subject than
we did before introducing the national data collection in 2000. Before
that, no one even checked to see how they were doing in
school.
I shall be
confessional for a moment. I have said publicly that during my
career—I was in the teaching
profession until 1994—my awareness of those children that might
have had looked-after status in the classroom and the school was
minimal. There was none of the focus that has rightly been introduced
over the past few years, which has led to an improvement in outcomes.
However, I think that we would all agree that that still is not good
enough. At first, we
found that only 7 per cent. of looked-after children achieved five good
GCSEs; by 2006, that figure had increased to 13 per cent. However, we
should not exaggerate. The hon. Member for Ceredigion suggested that 79
per cent. of looked-after children had no GCSEs, but that is not quite
true. In 2000, 49 per cent. had one GCSE, and the figure rose to 64 per
cent. by 2007. Again, it is not good enough, but we should not
exaggerate the problem.
In the
Children Act 2004, we introduced a duty for local authorities to
promote the educational achievement of looked-after children. Building
on that duty, as part of the “Care Matters” agenda, we
are introducing an annual personal education allowance of £500
for all looked-after children who are at risk of not reaching the
nationally expected standards of attainment. It is intended to meet the
costs of the sort of activities or resources needed to support
looked-after children’s learning and development, in the same
way that a good parent would seek to enrich their child’s
education by making extra things
available. As
it stands, subsection (1) requires the governing body of a maintained
school to designate a member of staff as having a particular role
in
“promoting the
educational achievement of registered pupils ...who...are
looked after by a local
authority”. I
take the point made by the hon. Member for Upminster about having a
significant adult in school whom a young person can turn to, but that
will not necessarily be the designated teacher for looked-after
children. It might be a trusted subject teacher or form teacher.
Specifically, the designated teacher’s job is to promote the
educational achievement of registered pupils who are looked after by
the local
authority. 4.30
pm As
the hon. Lady said, most schools have a small number of looked-after
children on their roll, but we know that when there is someone in the
school whose job it is to champion the educational needs of
looked-after children, that can have a real impact on individual
outcomes. Most schools already have a designated teacher for
looked-after children, in line with the current good practice guidance,
but although we have come quite a long way in raising awareness in
schools of the needs of looked-after children, not all schools make
specific provision for their
needs. The
hon. Member for Ceredigion was right to point out that we should not
assume that all looked-after children have special educational needs. I
met a young man in Birmingham who told me that he never told anyone
that he was in care until quite some time into the acquaintance because
he felt that he would be judged immediately in exactly that fashion
when in fact he fully intended—and I completely believed
him—to qualify as a doctor in the next few years and was
obviously a very bright and academically able young man. As the hon.
Gentleman said, we should not make such assumptions.
However,
because schools do not always make specific provision, it came out
quite clearly in the “Care Matters” consultation that we
need to take action to put the requirement on a statutory footing and
to make it a requirement for all governing bodies of all maintained
schools to appoint a designated teacher to ensure that the role is
given the status and recognition that it deserves. I say
“teacher” because the intention is—I have said
this publicly previously—that it should be a teacher. I shall
say more about that in a moment. This is a very effective way
significantly to improve educational outcomes for looked-after
children. We will use the regulation-making power in subsection (3) to
require the governing body to ensure that the designated person has the
necessary qualifications and experience—in particular, qualified
teacher status. There may be examples, which I shall come to, in which
that does not necessarily need to be the case, but it will be the
norm. In
addition, we will issue statutory guidance to governing bodies, setting
out in some detail the role and responsibilities of the designated
teacher. I am referring to the role of the designated teacher in
assessing the child’s educational needs and in making
arrangements for co-operating with the local authority, especially in
relation to the development of the child’s personal education
plan. Guidance will also stress the sorts of administrative task that
could be undertaken by non-teaching staff acting in support, as well as
the importance of ensuring that the school’s policy on pastoral
care is effective for looked-after
children. Under
amendments Nos. 18 and 30, a designated governor would be appointed to
promote the educational achievement of looked-after children. That
would be in addition to the designated teacher. The amendments would
also ensure that the governor had the necessary information to
discharge that role effectively. I agree with the hon. Members for East
Worthing and Shoreham and for Upminster about the significant role that
school governors can and should play. It is right that they pay proper
attention to promoting the educational achievement of looked-after
children on their roll, and certainly governors and staff need to
understand that school can often be a particular haven of consistency
and continuity in the lives of looked-after children. That has
implications for the way in which schools work to support their
educational
achievement. However,
clause 20, supported by the appropriate statutory guidance, will ensure
that that happens and, indeed, will make it clear that the governing
body should expect to receive a regular report on the work of the
designated teacher and on outcomes for looked-after children who are
pupils at the school. Governing bodies have a legal duty to promote
high standards of educational achievement and well-being for all pupils
at the school, including looked-after children. The governing
body’s role is and should be essentially a strategic one. Of
course, there is nothing to prevent a governing body from identifying a
link governor to lead on issues relating to looked-after children, but
the governing body overall remains responsible for any decisions taken.
We will make that absolutely clear when we issue governing bodies with
statutory guidance on the role and responsibilities of the designated
teacher.
It is
encouraging that awareness among school governors of the needs of
looked-after children has increased significantly in recent years. We
are committed to ensuring that school governors are provided with
training to help
them understand the needs of looked-after child and
effectively hold schools to account. We expect to use the statutory
guidance on the role and responsibilities of the designated teacher to
set out clearly what governors need to put in place. The guidance
will build on that produced in 2005 by the former Department for
Education and Skills, in partnership with the Who Cares? Trust and the
Advisory Centre for Education. The 2005 guidance, which was called
“Supporting Looked After Learners—A Practical Guide for
School Governors”, was designed to help individual governors
gain an understanding of the experiences of looked-after children in
schools and of the challenges that they need to overcome if they are to
succeed.
Amendment
No. 18 seeks to ensure that foster carers and others who care for
looked-after children are informed of their educational progress. It
goes without saying that it is vital that those who are responsible for
a looked-after child—whether as a foster carer or in a
residential setting—receive regular and comprehensive
information about the child’s educational progress. Indeed, we
would expect all those who are responsible for the care of a
looked-after child to help them meet their full potential. For a number
of reasons, however, amendment No. 18 is not necessary to achieve that
aim.
Under the
Education (Pupil Information) (England) Regulations 2005, schools are
already required to provide an annual report to the parent of every
child who is a registered pupil at the school, and that includes
looked-after children. For the purposes of education law, a parent
includes anyone who has parental responsibility or who has care of the
child. That includes foster carers and a child’s key residential
worker in a children’s home. Schedule 1 of the regulations
clearly lists what information the report should contain, including
brief particulars of achievements in all subjects and activities that
form part of the school curriculum, plus comments on the child’s
general progress and details of the arrangements for discussing their
reports with their teacher.
The
intention behind the duty that clause 20 places on the governing body
is very precise. The governing body must appoint a designated person
whose specific role it will be to promote the educational achievement
of registered pupils at the school who are looked after by a local
authority. A key aspect of that role will be to ensure that the school
works closely with the child’s carers and the local authority,
which will also have a particular duty to promote the child’s
educational achievement, as I said.
As I
indicated, we will issue statutory guidance to governing bodies setting
out in detail what we expect the designated teacher to do to promote
the educational achievement of looked-after children at their school.
Among other things, the guidance will cover helping the child’s
carers to get involved in supporting the child’s education,
regularly assessing the child’s progress, identifying any
additional needs and participating in the development of the
child’s personal education plan and in the regular six-monthly
reviews of that plan.
The personal
education plan forms part of the child’s care plan, and we have
made it clear in statutory guidance that social workers should fully
involve the child’s carers and, where appropriate, their parents
in drawing up the child’s personal education plan. Social
workers should also work in partnership with the designated teacher to
ensure that the plan sets clear objectives and targets and
clearly identifies the additional support that the
child will need to achieve those targets. The regulations that apply to
the regular reviews of the child’s case require the
child’s educational needs, progress and development to be
considered at the six-monthly review. Through statutory guidance, we
make it clear that the child’s carers should be involved in that
review in addition to the child’s parents. Amendment
No. 28 makes provision for the designated person to be a qualified
teacher. We would not disagree with that; indeed we made that intention
clear in the “Care Matters” White Paper and in debate on
similar amendments in the other place. Although I understand the
reasons for wanting to ensure that the role of the designated person is
performed by a teacher, the best way of dealing with the issue is to
set out in regulations precisely who is qualified for the job. In most
cases, we would expect the role to be filled by a teacher with
qualified teacher status, but there might be some exceptions to that.
Some teachers can practise without qualified teacher status, such as
overseas-trained teachers, as members of the Committee will know. Of
course, there are also those who started their careers before the
current training requirements came into force.
The key
point is that it is better to specify that in regulation, rather than
doing so rigidly through primary legislation, because that will allow
for changes to be made more easily in line with changes in teacher
training without the need for further primary legislation. To have the
necessary flexibility, it is much better that that is done through
regulation. The power to prescribe qualifications through legislation
will enable us to update the qualifications of the designated person,
if there is any change in the framework of teacher qualifications,
without the delay of amending primary
legislation. Amendment
No. 29 would make the designated person responsible for promoting the
well-being of looked-after children and championing their educational
achievement. On Second Reading, the hon. Members for Mid-Dorset and
North Poole and for Ceredigion spoke about the need to ensure that the
designated teacher takes sufficient account of pastoral needs as well
as academic achievement. Again, we do not disagree that an holistic
approach is required. The designated teacher should discharge his or
her responsibilities for looked-after children registered in the school
in that holistic way, but the amendment is not needed for that to be
achieved. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 already places the
governing body of a maintained school under a duty to promote the
well-being of all pupils in a school, including looked-after children,
and that is in addition to their duty under the Education Act 2002 to
ensure that they promote the welfare of all the children on their roll.
Since 2005, Ofsted has been under a duty to report on the contribution
that schools make to their pupils’ well-being. The well-being
duty on schools ensures that they focus specifically on the five
“Every Child Matters” outcomes, as defined in section 10
of the Children Act 2004—I will not go into the detail because I
know that members of the Committee are familiar with them.
The
designated teacher will therefore have an important role in championing
the well-being of looked-after children and raising awareness of their
particular needs. We want the primary focus of that role to be on
raising expectations about teaching and learning
for looked-after children and supporting them to achieve their full
potential. Given the significant attainment gap between looked-after
children and children generally, which we all
know about, we need make no apology for having that at the
forefront I hope that
I have offered reassurance on how seriously we take the role of
designated teachers and of school governors in ensuring that
looked-after children have the support that they need to reach their
potential. I hope that hon. Members will, on that basis, feel that they
can withdraw their
amendments. | 
