 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Education and Skills Bill |
Education and Skills Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Nick
Walker, Tom Goldsmith, Committee
Clerks
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 28 February 2008(Afternoon)[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]Education and Skills Bill1
pm
The
Chairman:
Before we resume consideration, I would like to
remind everybody present in the strongest possible terms that civil
servants and members of the public seated in the Public Gallery must
remain silent while the Committee is sitting. If they do not remain
silent, I shall have to direct that they be removed. I strongly
deprecate the events of this morning, when I understand that voices
were heard from the Public Gallery while I was collecting the voices on
the question that clause 71 stand part of the Bill. Such misconduct by
members of the public is disorderly.
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): On a
point of order, Mr. Bayley. I am grateful for that ruling,
which relates to my point of order and which I anticipated to some
degree. I would like to add, however—and I seek your guidance on
this—that a member of this Committee was apparently engaged in
dialogue with someone in the Public Gallery during that sitting, which
I would guess is as reprehensible as a member of the Public Gallery
intervening in our affairs.
The
Chairman:
As I was sitting at this end of the room when
the voice from the gallery was heard this morning, I did not personally
hear it and neither did the Clerk, who was sitting at this Table. I
understand, however, from two hon. Members—one from each
side—that this event did happen, which is why I made my
statement to the Committee. Had I heard it myself in the middle of the
morning session, I would have made a similar statement then. I
obviously cannot comment on what I have not heard, but the Committee
will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
We should make progress
now.
Clause 76Independent
educational
institutions
Question
proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Question
again
proposed.
The
Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight):
I trust
that we are all refreshed and invigorated. By way of recap,
Mr. Bayley, clause 76 introduces a new definition of
independent educational institutions. The new definition includes
independent schools providing full-time education for pupils of
compulsory school age. It also includes part-time institutions that 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.
It might be
helpful if I took this opportunity to respond to some of the points
made when we opened the debate this morning, which were mainly about
home education and comments made by home educators in response to our
consultation. I will explain how current education law and proposed
changes in the Bill affect home educators.
Section 7 of the Education Act
1996 requires the parents of every child of compulsory school age to
cause their child to receive—by regular attendance at school or
otherwise—efficient, full-time education suitable to that
child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational
needs they may have. “Otherwise” in this context may be
education at home or in an institution that is not registered as a
school.
During 2007,
we commissioned research to assess the number of children educated at
home. The researchers estimated that around 20,000 were known to local
authorities, but that there could be a further 20,000 or more who had
not identified themselves to their local authorities. A home is not an
institution, and our policy is clear. When parents deliver or supervise
education that takes place in the home, they are not conducting an
independent educational institution.
We clarified arrangements for
monitoring home education in November 2007, publishing the document the
hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred to,
“Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local
Authorities.” That underwent extensive consultation, generating
over 900 responses, most of them from home educators who have a keen
interest in legislation that could affect their freedoms. I am pleased
to say that home educators broadly welcomed the guidelines. Only 4 per
cent. of respondents to the consultation thought the guidelines
unhelpful.
A small
number of parents opt to educate otherwise than at school, using
unregistered settings where children are supervised and taught by
adults who are not their parents. Tyndale Academy—which I
mentioned in response to questioning from the hon. Member for Bognor
Regis and Littlehampton—is one such institution. Tyndale has
varied its hours over the years, but its website currently states that
it is a tuition group that operates from 9 am to 2 pm, five days per
week. Earlier I named the other three institutions, which we have
referred to in parliamentary questions and
elsewhere.
In all four
cases, children attend for a substantial part of the school day and are
not supervised by their parents. If the institutions were registered
independent schools, they would be registered and inspected against the
regulatory framework introduced in September 2003, following the
Education Act 2002. That framework ensures that all children in
registered 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 the same safeguards are in place
for children in those settings. Should such a part-time institution use
corporal punishment, for example, that would then be regulated and the
law outlawing corporal punishment applied. The clause applies to
institutions that provide 12.5 hours 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 the school year. The institutions are providing the majority of a
child’s education, and it is therefore right that they meet the
minimum standards.
The
independent school standards are flexible and are adapted successfully
to a wide range of settings, including Steiner
schools, schools following the curriculum of other countries,
pupil-referral-type provision and schools that cater for children with
severe learning difficulties. There is no question of independent
schools having to follow the national curriculum or employ teachers
with specific qualifications, and therefore no reputable institution
should have difficulty complying with the statutory
requirements.
The hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred to opposition from
consultees to extending the scope of regulation to part-time education
institutions. I agree that there was opposition, but it came mainly
from home educators who thought—wrongly—that the
proposals would affect home education. In our first consultation in
November 2006, 156 of the 175 respondents identified themselves as home
educators, individuals or “others”. Local authorities and
registered independent schools were in favour of our proposals.
Respondents who disagreed with the consultation proposals were worried
about how we would define “a major part” of a
child’s education. My Department responded to those concerns by
issuing a second consultation in August 2007, which made it
clear—we thought—that home education was to be excluded
from the proposed changes. However, 50 per cent. of the responses were
from home educators who opposed the proposed changes because they
thought that the changes might restrict their freedom to come together
to deliver group activities as part of a home education programme.
There were also objections from sporting bodies which thought that
sport or other supplementary provision might be caught by the new
definition. Therefore, in drawing up the legislation we paid close
attention to those representations. The Committee will see that we no
longer attempt to define the main provider on the face of the Bill,
because that would be open to misinterpretation. Rather, the definition
works by reference to a lower bound of hours, as I have set
out.
The hon. Member
for Bognor Regis referred to the policy statement on clause 76. It is
not the intention of the proposals to remove parents’ rights to
educate their children at home. Home education, supervised or delivered
by parents, either in the family home or elsewhere, and any
arrangements used by parents to supplement home education which do not
exceed the thresholds, will not be included in the regulatory regime.
Some parents supplement home education with provision that includes
group tuition by private tutors employed by parents, or tuition by
groups of home educators themselves, for drama, sport or music. Only
where a parent is delegating responsibility that exceeds the minimum
hours thresholds will that provision be subject to the regulatory
regime.
Further,
to ensure that no provision is unintentionally caught by the new
definition of independent educational institutions, clause 76 provides
for certain settings to be
excluded. Those exclusions will definitely apply to hospital schools, to
home tutorial services organised by a local authority, and to home
education—a point I reinforce because some people involved in
that activity clearly find it difficult to believe what we say. More
detail is given in the policy statement that I circulated this week to
the Committee.
Other
settings that either do not meet the proposed threshold or are not the
main provider will remain outside the definition of an independent
educational institution. Examples are summer schools, sports clubs,
music tuition, and revision and study support groups undertaken in
support of a child’s main education. I say yet again, to be
absolutely clear, that we do not believe home education is affected by
the definition.
I
believe that the proposals strike the right balance between protecting
children and ensuring that they receive a good education, and allowing
parents to make arrangements that they believe are in the best
interests of their child. They leave a parent’s right to home
educate intact and ensure regulation for all settings in which a
material part of a child’s education is delegated to others. On
the basis of those many reassurances and answers to the hon.
Gentleman’s many and varied questions, I hope that he will be
happy to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr. Nick
Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con):
We may not think people are listening to our debate,
but during the lunch break I had a couple of e-mails from people who
were listening, regarding our proceedings just before lunch. There is a
concern among home educators that, if they form a group of parents to
educate their children collectively, and exceed 12.5 hours of primary
education or 15 hours of secondary education, they will
constitute an independent institution and will therefore require to be
inspected. The Minister confirmed that in his response. That is a
concern to home educators, because they do group together and provide
education on a collective basis, and they do not believe that that
should be considered a
school.
Jim
Knight:
This Government have been responsible for the
parent-promoted Elmgreen school. It is the policy of the hon.
Gentleman’s party also to encourage parent-promoted schools.
Does he think that they should be
regulated?
Mr.
Gibb:
Yes, because they are schools. Parents who get
together because they want to home educate their children—which
they are entitled to do under the law—do not wish those
institutions to become schools with all the expense that that would
entail.
Jim
Knight:
How then would the hon. Gentleman differentiate
between a parent-promoted school and one where parents have come
together to form an institution for home
education?
Mr.
Gibb:
It need not be an institution—just parents
getting together to home educate their children. It is difficult to be
an expert in maths, geography and science. A group of parents may well
get together and collectively educate those children in one of their
homes, and this provision will mean that that will
constitute an independent educational institution. That is why home
educators are concerned, and the Minister has done nothing to alleviate
that concern. As for health and safety, as one of my e-mail
correspondents this morning said, there is already plenty of
legislation under which local authorities can intervene if they feel
there are safety issues affecting
children.
Mr.
Knight:
I hope that it will help those listening if I say
that the regulation will exclude those arrangements where parents are,
collectively, as a sort of mutual organisation, educating each
other’s children, and the parents themselves are present.
However, if it starts to look like an institution, I think it fair and
reasonable that it should be regulated as an
institution.
Mr.
Gibb:
I do not think that that will alleviate concerns
either, because parents may well wish to employ specialist
teachers—a music or piano teacher, for example—to assist
with their tasks. When there are legislative changes, I like to know
what problem the regulation is seeking to solve. What problems has the
Minister become aware of that have led him to propose the clause? If he
can reply, I have a number of other questions on that
point.
Mr.
Knight:
To give an example, I am aware of one institution,
currently unregulated, that practises corporal punishment. That is
illegal and it should be
regulated.
Mr.
Gibb:
That brings me to the real purpose of the clause,
which is to deal with one particular institution: the Tyndale Academy.
Because of that, it is dragging into these provisions 20,000 or 40,000
or—according to some estimates, 50,000—home-school
educators in this country. I do not have a view one way or the other. I
have not visited the Tyndale Academy. I have just received submissions
from it that I think ought to be aired. The principal of Tyndale
Academy, Ferris Lindsay, has written to my hon. Friend the Member for
Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) stating that the Department’s first
step was to write to Tyndale in an officious manner, and that the
academy was threatened with criminal prosecution if it failed to
register within 30 days. After that threat was withdrawn, the
Department started consulting on the
measures.
1.15
pm
The principal
says that the academy believes that it is being victimised by the
Department in an officious, over-zealous way and that that has led to
this clause, which is designed to deal with only that one institution.
He states:
“The
reason for such single-minded resolution on the part of the DCSF has,
we believe, been because of an unstated aversion to the discipline
policy at Tyndale.”
He
further
states:
“With
parental permission, tutors at Tyndale are able to use a smack on the
hand to correct a persistently disobedient child. This sanction was
used about a dozen times during the academic year 2005-06. The
Department recognises the legality of the
situation and, rather than prosecute the proprietor, it has sought to
embrace the provision at Tyndale under a framework that would render
the policy illegal.”
The
academy believes that that is a misuse of departmental power and
resources. There have been several hundred pieces of correspondence
between the Department, the school, the local authority and the Member
of Parliament for that
area.
Mr.
Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Can my hon.
Friend offer the Minister any idea of what the literacy and numeracy
levels are like at that
academy?
Mr.
Gibb:
An Ofsted inspection has judged it a good school,
with good behaviour and academic
standards.
Will the
Minister respond to the point that the institution can use minor
corporal punishment if it has parental permission, but that it will no
longer be able to do so if it becomes an educational institution,
because it will be subject to the rule that corporal punishment cannot
be used in schools? At the moment, as a collective of parents, it can
do that with their permission. Is that not the drive behind the
clause?
Jim
Knight:
I do not propose to get drawn into a specific
discussion on the Tyndale Academy because we are not proposing the
legislation merely to deal with one institution. As we have already set
out, it would currently apply to four
institutions.
As I have
set out previously to the Committee, our intention is to ensure that,
if a child is receiving the majority of their education somewhere that
could be defined as an institution, it is safe and secure. If any one
of those institutions were to operate at fewer than the number of hours
that we have specified, I have set out the circumstances in which that
would become unregulated activity. It is then up to those parents what
goes on there, as long as it is within the law with respect to
safeguarding the
children.
“This chapter of the Bill
was specifically drafted with one aim in mind. It was added to the Bill
very late and prejudged the findings of the Consultation, which
supposedly “justifies” it. We have letters from Jacqui
Smith (2004) and Lord Adonis (2007) to our own MP Stephen Timms stating
that Tyndale was the only establishment that the Department has come
across which has not registered as an independent school when asked
to.”
I feel that
there is some persecution of that school. I have not seen it and I do
not know what it is like. However, I wanted to air the strongly held
views expressed to me and others by the academy about the clause and
the activities of the Department over the last couple of years, which
seem to have been over-zealous and officious towards the school. It is
in a deprived part of London and is providing a much higher quality of
education in that area than is being provided currently by the state
system.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 29 February 2008 |