Clause
75
Information:
supplementary
Amendment
made: No. 203, in clause 75, page 46, line 23, leave out
‘71’ and insert ‘(Benefit and training
information)’.—[Mr.
Lammy.]
Clause
75, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
76
Independent
educational
institutions
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gibb:
We now come to part 4 of the Bill which presents a
case study in how not to legislate. I think we have just had such a
case study—when Ministers are not focused on what is happening
in the Committee, it makes it very difficult for the Opposition to
express a
view when it is not clear precisely whether or not the Minister is in
favour of a clause.
We come to
another example of poor legislation: a series of proposals that is
based on an inaccurate understanding of the facts and that has an
accompanying impact assessment that is factually wrong; a consultation
document that contains errors of materiality that go to the root of the
proposals; and a consultation process that involved no genuine
consultation prior to the proposals being formulated with the
organisations directly affected by the measures. We had a consultation
process affecting 1,300 schools that took place between 27 July 2007
and 19 October 2007—the majority of that period was during the
school summer holidays—and the result of the consultation
process was entirely ignored except for one tiny concession about
delaying the transfer until Ofsted was more able to cope with the extra
work.
We will come to
each of these issues, and more, when we address the appropriate
amendment; for now, I will confine my remarks to clause 76. The clause
introduces an additional definition of an independent school to include
part-time education. The proposal goes back to a
Department for Education and Skills—as the Department was
then—consultation in November 2006 on guidance regarding what
constitutes full-time education in independent schools. The reason
given by the Department for needing such a definition was
that:
“patterns of
schooling are changing, and there is a greater diversity of approach to
education, with some parents opting for home education which includes
part time tuition at tutorial colleges or schools.”
The consultation document went on to
say:
“Parents
must ensure that their child receives an education suitable to his/her
age, needs and attitudes, either at school or otherwise. In cases where
this is achieved by a mix of part time attendance at school and part
time education at home, this must be agreed with the school, with both
parents and schools having a clear understanding of their roles and
responsibilities. Both should be able to describe and evidence the part
each plays in contributing to a broad and balanced curriculum meeting
the needs of the individual child.”
It therefore appears
that the initial reason for embarking on this consultation and revision
to the definition of an independent school was to ensure that home
educators were able to demonstrate that their children were receiving
an adequate education. However, the consultation document goes on to
say that the proposals
“will ensure that any settings
providing all, or a major part, of children’s education will be
registered, and required to meet the minimum regulatory
standards.”
My first question for
the Minister is, which of those two reasons is the prime reason for
launching the policy revision?
The response
to the November 2006 consultation document was overwhelming
opposition—72 per cent. disagreed with the proposal that any
setting that provided more than 20 hours of education a week should be
treated as an independent school and thus subject to registration.
According to the Government’s summary of responses,
“The majority of those
opposed were home educators, who believed that it was the
responsibility of parents to provide and educate their child rather
than the responsibility of the state. They were concerned about what
was meant by a ‘school’ in this context, and wanted
clarification about whether the DfES was planning on changing the legal
definition of a school.”
10.15
am
In
the light of this overwhelming opposition the Government consulted in
August last year on revised proposals which were meant to take on board
the concerns of home educators. The revised consultation
says:
“We have
now had time to consider these points and have concluded that the best
approach is to adjust the definition of an independent school so as to
specify that an independent school is the main organiser of a programme
of education for children of compulsory school age, unless provision is
excluded through
regulations.”
The
consultation document goes on to
say:
“We would
propose that regulations exclude: schools maintained by a local
authority; non-maintained special schools; temporary provision e.g.
summer schools; any institutions providing less than 12.5 hours per
week tuition (primary) and 15 hours (secondary) for individual
children; further education colleges; hospital schools; home tutorial
services organised by a local authority; education supervised or
delivered by
parents”
Those proposals,
too, were overwhelmingly opposed by respondents: 79
per cent. disagreed with the main proposal that settings that are the
main organisers of education for children of compulsory school age
should be regulated, subject to the list of exceptions that I have read
out, and 74 per cent. opposed the list of
exceptions.
The
main concern of Education Otherwise, as summarised in the
Government’s summary of responses, was
that
“the proposals would
have an undesirable impact on home educating families, compromising
their educational
freedoms.”
The Home
Education Advisory Service also disagreed with the proposal. The
summary of responses
reports:
“They
believe that some of the highly individual arrangements that are made
by home educating parents should not be subject to the same
registration procedures as independent schools which have premises,
teaching staff and a specific
curriculum.”
Despite
the opposition to the proposals from respondents to the consultation
process, the Government have decided to proceed with the revised
definition, as contained in the clause. They say:
“We will consult further
on draft regulations in the coming months, but are committed to
providing examples in relation to those institutions to be excluded
from the requirement to register, eg: home education, including part
time teaching in the home by tutors, home education through
correspondence courses, and collaborative arrangements where home
educators come together for part of the week to jointly educate groups
of children; sports clubs, and language colleges, which offer
specialist coaching in limited subjects; local authority organised home
tuition; temporary provision; summer
schools.”
In
responding, will the Minister tell the Committee what is his estimate
of the number of compulsory school age children who are currently home
educated, whether that figure is rising or falling, and why? Clause
76(3)(a) states that regulations
may
“provide that a
specified institution or an institution of a specified description is
not an independent educational institution by virtue of subsection
(1)(b)”.
Will
he say whether those regulations will include all the types of
education listed in the Government’s summary of responses to the
consultation process, including home education or groups of parents
collaborating together on the education of their
children?
In
its response to the consultation, Education Otherwise said that its
main concern with the proposal to broaden the definition was that many
home education families
could end up being affected. The Government’s policy statement on
the clause, circulated by e-mail to members of the Committee on Tuesday
says: “It is
not the intention of the proposals to remove parents’ right to
educate their children at home. However, we believe that it is
essential that institutions which are the main provider of a
child’s education are subject to the regulation and inspection
which the independent school legislative framework
provides.”
That statement
of policy is highly ambiguous, given the word
“however”. An explicit and unequivocal assurance by the
Minister on this point would go a long way towards assuring the tens of
thousands of home educators that the underlying purpose of the clause
is not to undermine the growing trend towards home
education.
I
am sure that the Minister will say that these proposals were never
meant to affect home education, despite the initial consultation
document of November 2006, which made explicit reference to home
educators. I am sure that he will say that this measure is all about
dealing with a small number of independent schools that are part time,
but are none the less the main providers of a child’s education.
My understanding is that the matter relates to four institutions. The
Minister’s answer to my parliamentary question of 16 January
said that there were four unregistered
settings:
“The
four unregistered settings are as follows: a small tuition group which
provides a curriculum based on Christian principles for children aged 4
to 11 and operates for five hours a day for up to 20 children; a
support centre for home
educators”—
so
there we are, some home
educators—
“which
provides academic lessons for 18 hours from Monday to Thursday and
optional recreational based activities for three hours on Fridays; an
establishment providing 16 and a half hours of education from Monday to
Friday for three to six-year-olds as part of a home education programme
where parents also provide five hours 15 minutes a week; a centre
educating both pupils placed by local authorities and others. Pupils
attend for a total of 20 hours from Monday to
Friday.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2008; Vol.
470, c. 1269-70W.]
Will the Minister let the
Committee know the names of these four institutions and his assessment
of the quality of provision in those four institutions? The more open
and transparent the Minister can be, the better for the functioning of
this Committee. In particular, will he confirm whether or not Tyndale
Academy is one of the four
schools?
The
Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight):
It is a
pleasure to be able to make a contribution this morning and to have
been able to move on to part 4 at such an early stage in the
Committee’s proceedings.
The hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton started with a series of
allegations, which I could reject one by one, but for the sake of the
efficiency of the Committee, it is probably better that I do that when
we reach the appropriate amendments rather than in the context of
clause 76, to which the allegations were not really
specific.
Clause
76 introduces a new definition of independent educational institutions.
The new definition includes
independent schools which provide full-time education for pupils of
compulsory school age. It also includes part-time institutions which
are the main provider of a child’s education, as defined by the
number of hours of operation per week over a period of weeks in one
year. I do not have
the names of all four institutions to hand—in response to his
last set of questions—but I can confirm that Tyndale Academy is
one of the four and, from memory, Kids Company is another. I cannot
remember off the top of my head what the other two are, but it may come
to me in the course of my
response.
Independent
schools are already required to register and are inspected against the
regulatory framework introduced in September 2003 following the
Education Act 2002. Independent schools,
incidentally, are defined in statute by section 463 of the Education
Act 1996. It is worth noting, in relation to what I will go on to say
regarding home educators, that an independent school has more than five
pupils, unless they have one pupil who has special educational needs or
who is in public care. A home is also not defined as an institution,
which is part of the protection to home educators in the way the clause
is drafted.
Incidentally, the other two of
those four institutions are the Headstart Learning Centre and The
Children’s
Garden.
The framework
that I have referred to, introduced in September 2003 under the 2002
Act, ensures that all children in these schools have
suitable learning opportunities in a safe and secure learning
environment. The requirement to register part-time institutions, which
are not currently subject to any regulatory or monitoring framework,
will ensure that these same safeguards are put in place for children in
those settings. I am sure the Committee agrees on the importance of
ensuring that every child who is being taught in a school, full time or
part time, should be safe and secure in their learning
environment.
The
clause applies to institutions that make 12 and a half hours’
provision for primary age children and 15 hours for secondary age
children for 28 weeks a year or more—that equates to more than
half of a typical school week for more than half of a school year.
These institutions are, in our opinion, providing the majority of a
child’s education, so it is right that they should meet minimum
standards. We strongly believe that, where parents delegate the
education of their children to others, the state has a responsibility
to ensure that children have appropriate learning opportunities and
learn in a safe and secure environment. On the inclusion of part-time
institutions, although they are limited in number at this stage,
patterns of education are changing and we want to ensure that we have
the regulation in place before they change
further.
It being
twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock,
The
Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question
put, pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
