Clause
11
Educational
institutions: promotion of good
attendance
Mr.
Laws:
I beg to move amendment No. 163, in
clause 11, page 6, line 8, at
end insert—
‘(e) an
Academy,
(f) a city technology
college,
(g) a city college for
the technology of the arts,
and
(h) special schools which
are not community or foundation special schools but are for the time
being approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 of the
Education Act 1996 (c. 56) (approval of special
schools).’.
The clause, as stated in the
explanatory
notes,
“places a new duty
on governing bodies of certain institutions in England to promote
attendance for the purpose of enabling young people to meet the duty to
participate under clause
2.”
As the notes and the
detail of the Bill itself confirm, that duty applies simply to
community, foundation or voluntary schools, and special
schools—as well as to pupil referral units and further education
institutions. The LSC has asked for the same duty to be placed on
private providers.
Amendment No. 163 is also
inspired by the NUT; they are inspiring a lot of amendments among the
Opposition parties at this moment. The amendment seeks to explore why a
series of other educational institutions have been left out of this
particular duty to promote good attendance. The amendment includes
within that duty academies, city technology colleges, city technology
colleges of the arts and special schools that are not community or
foundation schools but are—for the time being—approved by
the Secretary of State.
I have no
problem with those educational institutions; indeed, I strongly support
academies and some of the other educational institutions detailed here.
I shall be working very hard to support Lord Adonis and others within
the Government who want to defend some of those institutions against
the attempt by the Prime Minister and perhaps even the Secretary of
State to throttle them gradually. However, I believe that it is
sensible for the freedoms that some of these institutions have to be
enjoyed by as many schools as possible.
It is also sensible for the
strategic oversight of all these educational organisations to operate
in the same way. Even within the space of this week, we have seen how
the Government seem to be implementing a strategic oversight of
educational institutions which differentiate some of the maintained
schools, which are already covered by clause 11, and schools in some
other categories, such as the ones listed in amendment No. 163, which
are institutions which traditionally have a greater degree of
freedom.
Yesterday, I
received a parliamentary answer regarding the duties that the
Government will place on educational institutions in relation to
compulsory cookery lessons. It was announced just a few weeks ago that
all maintained schools will have to have compulsory cookery lessons,
although we know that something like 85 per cent. of them already have
these lessons. However, in the answer from the Minister, dated 5
February, we see that these cookery lessons will not be compulsory for
academies. That seems to be a good example of the slightly bizarre
approach that the Government are taking in allowing freedoms to be
available to some educational institutions which are not available to
others. This is causing a different strategic oversight of some
educational institutions in comparison to others, for no good
reason.
The amendment
has been stimulated and, to be candid, written by the NUT, and we are
pleased to lend our names to it. It lists a series of other educational
institutions, which are taken from section 5 of the Education Act 2005.
It includes all those educational institutions that are subject to
Ofsted inspection. The logic of the amendment is that the duty to
promote attendance should be consistent with the susceptibility to
inspection.
I encourage
the Minister to explain the logic of leaving those institutions outside
the duty in clause 11. In what other ways will the duty will be catered
for? Presumably, the Government do not intend that those educational
establishments will not be obliged to pursue the duty to attend. Will
they be doing so through funding agreements? Why should funding
agreements be used for that purpose, rather than including them in the
Bill? How will the existing academies with their own existing funding
agreements be covered by the duty? Will there be any attempt to amend
the funding agreements to ensure that the duties in the Bill are part
of the duties of academies in the
future?
Jim
Knight:
We currently have 83 academies, 78 are or will be
direct providers of post-16 education. From September there will be two
city technology colleges and one city college for the technology of the
arts. They are in general regulated through their funding agreements
rather than through legislation. That is why they are not expressly
listed in clause 11. I assure the Committee that academies are required
through their funding agreements to have regard to the same guidance as
maintained schools on improving behaviour and attendance.
The situation is different for
the two CTCs and the one CCTA. They are not required by law to have
regard to the same guidance, as they were established as independent
institutions with particular freedoms, but they are successful schools
with high levels of post-16 participation from committed pupils whose
attendance and behaviour are good. I do not think we will have too many
problems with those institutions or with academies, where attendance
has risen at a much faster rate than nationally.
The final
category that would be added by the amendment is that of non-maintained
special schools. The hon. Gentleman has cause for some celebration
because, having reflected on his amendment, I would say we do need to
look further at the case for including that group of schools in clause
11. I will consider whether we might put forward a Government amendment
to that effect on Report. I hope in the light of that extraordinary
generosity and
admission—
Mr.
Laws:
Could the Minister tell me how many such schools
there are? It is not one or zero, is
it?
Jim
Knight:
The number of non-maintained special
schools?
Mr.
Laws:
The Minister said he might table his own amendment
to cover one category of educational institution. I was asking him to
clarify how many educational institutions fall into the category that
he will be allowing
for.
Jim
Knight:
When I know what is included in
the amendment that the Government might table, I will know the number.
The best estimate I have at the moment is 74. If the total is different
when the amendment is tabled, I will inform the House. I hope that in
the light of my reasoning and generosity, the hon. Gentleman will
withdraw his amendment.
Mr.
Laws:
This is the first triumph of this Committee’s
proceedings. It is the first time the Government have had to do a
massive U-turn. As ever, they prefer to table their own amendment
rather than allow this magnificent Laws-NUT amendment to be included in
the Bill. I hope that I do not get angry letters from 74 institutions
that will now be included in this duty.
I am grateful to hear we have
made some ground. I am still a little baffled why it makes sense for
such a duty to be administered through an individual funding agreement.
It clearly is a strategic duty, so why not have strategic duties
operating at a strategic level, rather than have them dealt with
individually in the funding agreements?
I thought it
was rather odd to say that in a number of the institutions listed in
the amendments, there would not be too many problems, because their
participation or attendance rates are very high. One could say that a
number of maintained schools that will be covered by the clause should
be exempt on that basis. I also heard no reassurance about what will
happen to the established academies which will not have the duty in
their funding agreements. Is it intended to rewrite the funding
agreements? Will they be changed retrospectively, or will those
academies be exempt from the duty?
Jim
Knight:
I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said
that academies are required through their funding agreements to have
regard to the same guidance as maintained schools on improving
behaviour and attendance. Clearly the guidance for schools will have to
reflect the clause in terms of promoting good attendance, so that duty
will apply to existing academy
agreements.
Mr.
Laws:
I think I understand the Minister’s point.
Let me give my understanding of what he is saying, and he can stop me
if I am getting it wrong. I think he is saying that the established
academies that have their own funding agreements will automatically
have to have regard to clause 11 because that is implied directly in
their funding agreements, so there will be no need to amend
them.
Jim
Knight
indicated
assent.
Mr.
Laws:
The Minister is nodding. That gives me some
reassurance, but I would still rather not deal with this particular
issue through this route. But having managed to persuade the Government
to tweak slightly in our direction, I think I had better cut my losses
and thank the Minister for his comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Marsden:
I rise on clause stand part
merely to make a brief comment and to put a question to my hon. Friend
the Minister. In relation to the exercise of the governing
bodies’ functions, the clause is neutral on the range of courses
to which the students in the category described should have access.
However, the Edge foundation, with which I have worked closely via the
all-party skills
group and the Skills Commission, and one or two other organisations have
raised their concern that some governing bodies, which should already
be ensuring that students have access to a range of courses adapted to
their interests and needs, favour an academic style of learning over
more a more practical or vocational approach. As a result, some young
people may be offered a limited choice of options both before and after
the age of 16. The organisations make the point, which I thoroughly
agree with, that some young people become disaffected because they do
not enjoy school and find classes boring or irrelevant. They also make
the point about the importance of learning by doing, or practical
learning.
With that in mind, if my hon.
Friend the Minister does not feel that that is an appropriate subject
for an amendment to the Bill—I would understand why—is he
able to say what the Government might be able to do, whether through
guidance or some other initiative, to ensure that governing bodies,
which are required to promote participation, have due regard to the
broadest range of courses available?
3.30
pm
Jim
Knight:
Certainly, they should have regard to that duty.
The clause clearly is just about promoting attendance, but clause 66,
to which I refer my hon. Friend, deals with impartial advice of the
sort for which Edge is calling. That clause specifically requires
schools to give impartial advice. It has been slightly misinterpreted
by some sections of the press, the Committee will be amazed to hear,
but it is certainly the case that we want to ensure, as Edge has
argued, that advice is in the best interests of the learner rather than
in the best interests of the organisation giving that advice. I hope
that, on that basis, the Committee is happy to agree clause
11.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 11
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
12
Duty
to make arrangements to identify persons not fulfilling duty imposed by
section
2
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gibb:
Clause 12 is a rather frightening clause. I know
that local authorities need to know which children are resident in
their area so that they can enforce compulsory education, and I realise
that they need data that they can use to promote participation post-16.
I also realise that much of those data are already collected by
Connexions so it can fulfil its function, However, the wording of the
Green Paper is rather alarming in paragraph 7.3, which
states:
“In
every area of the country, considerable effort is being put into
identifying where young people currently are and what they are
doing”.
The duty imposed
by clause 12, similarly, requires local authorities to
“make arrangements to enable it to
establish...the identities of persons belonging to its area
... who are failing to fulfil the duty imposed by section
2.”
Those sorts of powers and duties are
always introduced with good intent, but it would be helpful if the
Minister, for the record, spelt out the extent to which the duty in the
clause is new, why it is necessary and why the clause is
needed?
Jim
Knight:
The duty on local authorities is, as I think the
hon. Member understands, fundamental. As he says, it is clear that for
the local authority to fulfil its duty of promoting participation, and
to ensure that everyone benefits from staying on, it will need to know
who is not participating and what is being done to re-engage them. That
information is necessary so that personal advisers from Connexions can
contact the young person and offer them support in finding or accessing
provision.
The
Connexions service already uses a tracking system, so as far as I am
aware, the clause simply restates the existing arrangements, taking
into account the transfer of Connexions to local authorities. When
Connexions makes the transfer, if the database is not maintained, it
will be impossible to track young people and, therefore, to intervene
effectively and provide support that is timely and appropriate to their
needs. The clause simply strengthens the legal basis for the tracking
system, and in so doing, it sets a legal imperative to ensure that, by
2013, local authorities are fully equipped to carry out those functions
and to ensure that those young people who are in most need are
identified promptly and provided with timely
support.
Technically
the duty is a new one, but the clause is very similar to section 436A
of the Education Act 1996, which deals with pre-16s, so we are only
reinforcing an existing system and extending the legal duty from pre-16
to post-16 in line with the Bill. I hope that that is clear enough to
enable the Committee to approve the
clause.
Mr.
Laws:
I shall not detain the Committee long, but we tabled
an amendment to delete the clause, so I need at least to register my
concerns, which are broadly in line with those expressed by the hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. The Minister said, quite
rightly, that there is a similar duty now covering pre-16s, as one
would expect. However, the clause sets out a new duty, which presumably
will have large costs associated with it and is completely tied in to
the duties regarding compulsion in the Bill. That is why we tabled our
amendment to delete the clause, which is one of the parts of the Bill
that we
oppose.
Mr.
Gibb:
I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Yeovil.
Given that we are opposed to the concept of compulsion, we wish to
divide the Committee on clause stand
part.
Question
put, that the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
5.
Division
No.
11
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 12 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
| 
