Clause
77
Application
of Chapter to institutions in England
only
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 142, in
clause 77, page 47, line 39, leave
out from beginning of line 39 to
‘Chapter’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 143, in clause 77, page 47,
line 40, at end add
‘shall cease to apply to
independent educational institutions in
England.’.
Mr.
Gibb:
The purpose of the amendment is to enable me to
raise a minor drafting concern brought to the attention of members of
the Committee by a supplementary briefing prepared by the Independent
Schools Council on 21 January. It made the following point:
“Much of Part 4 Chapter 1
of the Bill restates Part 10 Chapter 1 of the Education Act 2002, with
consequential changes made to reflect the proposed transfer of
regulatory functions from the Secretary of State to Ofsted. However, we
note that Part 10 Chapter 1 of the former Act does not appear to be
expressly repealed”.
I
tried to find the repeal but could not find it either. The briefing
went on to say that that is what it
“would expect since independent
schools should clearly not be expected to comply with two contrary
systems of registration and regulation. We recommend consultation with
Parliamentary Counsel to ensure that, should Part 4 Chapter 1 of the
Bill become law (as we hope it will not), any lack of clarity over the
status of the existing registration provision be removed on the face of
the Bill.”
Jim
Knight:
Clause 77 applies chapter 1 of part 4 of the Bill
to independent educational institutions in England. Chapter 1 of part
10 of the Education Act 2002, which sets out the current statutory
framework for independent schools in England and Wales, will be amended
by the Bill so that it no longer applies to independent schools in
England. In its place, the provisions in part 4 of the Bill will come
into force, subject to the will of Parliament. Those are the
substantive issues that we will come on to discuss in detail.
The current regulatory regime
set out in the 2002 Act will continue to apply to independent schools
in Wales, but hon. Members might have noticed that the Government have
tabled an amendment to provide a framework power for the National
Assembly for Wales—I think that it is contained in a new clause
to replace clause 132. That will provide the legislative competence for
the Assembly to make legislation relating to the regulation and
inspection of schools in the independent sector. The framework power
will allow the Assembly to develop an approach to monitoring the
education provided in Welsh independent schools in a manner that meets
the needs of Wales. It will also enable the Assembly to make changes
comparable to those made for England if it decides after further
consideration and consultation to do so.
The amendments would have no
substantive impact on the operation of the clause and, indeed, would
not assist readers because they would remove the helpful reference to
the legislative framework for Wales. The amendment is therefore
unnecessary and I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw
it.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am grateful to the Minister for that partial
explanation, but I still do not understand how it is that chapter 1 of
part 10 of the Education Act 2002 will be removed, since clause 77
merely states that references in chapter 1 of part 4 of the Bill are to
apply only to England. It does not take out the references in chapter 1
of part 10 of the 2002 Act, so those provisions will still
apply.
Jim
Knight:
I always seek to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
I had not planned to say anything else, but I refer him to paragraph 13
of schedule 1— [
Interruption.
]
After that musical accompaniment, that is all that I need to
say.
Mr.
Gibb:
I will ponder the Minister’s words after the
Committee to see whether he is correct, but on the basis of his
explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
77 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
78
Independent
educational institution
standards
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 123, in
clause 78, page 48, leave out lines 18 and
19.
Clause
78 introduces an additional standard to those already legislated for in
section 157 of the Education Act 2002, which apply to independent
schools. The additional standard set out in subsection (1)(h) relates
to the quality of the leadership and management of independent
educational institutions. Paragraph 2.38 of the Government’s
consultation paper states that the proposal is to
“introduce a new management
standard to ensure that independent schools have good quality
leadership that enables the school to meet the standards required for
registration, and continued
registration.”
It
is extraordinary that the Department should want to legislate over
that. The independent sector in this country is not just excellent but
world class. It represents the benchmark against which we should be
assessing all schools in the
country.
Jim
Knight:
I would not argue that many or even the majority
of independent schools are excellent. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing
that every single independent school, however large or small, however
traditional or modern, is of the excellence he
described?
Mr.
Gibb:
Of course not, but I will argue, if the Minister
holds his horses for a moment, that there are no problems in the
independent sector with management and leadership so far as the
Independent Schools Inspectorate is
concerned.
Jim
Knight:
As far as the Independent Schools Inspectorate is
concerned.
Mr.
Gibb:
Absolutely. It represents 80 per cent. of children
who are educated in the independent sector. The independent sector has
very good management. Despite educating only 7 per cent. of children in
this country, rising to about 12 per cent. at sixth form, it achieves
62.8 per cent. of all A grades in A-level physics. There are similar
figures for biology and chemistry. As Christine Ryan, the Chief
Inspector of the Independent Schools Inspectorate, said in her evidence
to this Committee on 24 January
2008,
“None of
the schools that we inspected were found to have unsatisfactory
leadership and management.”——[Official Report,
Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2008;
c. 92, Q215.]
The
Independent Schools Inspectorate is a very demanding and high quality
inspectorate. It is itself inspected by Ofsted, which found all its
inspections to be of high quality.
The maintained sector, by
contrast, has been heavily criticised by Ofsted, which complains that
49 per cent. of secondary schools are not good enough, to use the words
of the Government. Why the Government, therefore, feel it necessary to
legislate on standards of management and leadership in the independent
sector is baffling, unless it is in some way intended to homogenise
their leadership or to extend state control into the way they manage
their schools.
As the
Independent Schools Council says in its detailed written response to
the consultation
document:
“Of a
sample of
412”-
independent
“schools
inspected since January 2006, leadership was judged to be excellent in
19%. of schools, good in 64%. and satisfactory in 17%. In no school was
leadership considered
unsatisfactory.”
Mr.
Heald
:
I wonder whether my hon. Friend is doing
full justice to the Government’s intentions. Perhaps what they
are after is to lower the quality of the independent sector to their
standards so that there is no proper literacy and numeracy and the
thing becomes a
shambles.
Mr.
Gibb:
That is a suspicion that the most cynical would
have. When there are statistics available that show that, while
educating only about 10 per cent. of the population, independent
schools achieve 65 per cent. of the A-level A grades in the sciences,
there could be a view that the way to remove those benchmark
comparisons is to lower the standards in the independent sector. That
is if the people who oppose private education cannot abolish it
altogether, which is the view of a minority.
The ISC document goes on to say
at paragraph 79,
“we do
question why it is necessary for there to be a standard to this effect
and the way in which this proposal has been presented has particularly
caused concern amongst member
schools.”
To
quote from paragraph 81, the ISC’s particular concern is that if
the standard
“is being
introduced to cope with poor management in a minority of non-ISC
schools, it might be argued that any standard aimed at this problem
would be far lower than the standard already being applied in ISC
schools.”
It adds:
“it would be disappointing if,
because of the reason for its introduction, the Government was to set a
standard far lower than
that.”
The other
main concern expressed by the ISC about the new management standard is
that of homogenisation—the point my hon. Friend the Member for
North-East Hertfordshire was alluding to. It says:
“ISC would have a
fundamental objection to any standard which sought to impose particular
styles of leadership or a framework or criteria which required schools
to conform to one organisation’s view of how schools should be
managed. The RIA, for example, refers to schools being required under
the new standard to appoint particular
teachers.”
The
Independent Schools Inspectorate itself therefore opposes this new
management standard. Page 9 of its written response
says:
“We do
not agree with the proposal as
drafted.
The ISI
framework for inspection already includes a requirement to make
judgements and report on the quality of a school’s leadership
and management. Evidence from inspections shows that the management of
most ISC schools is of good quality, much of it excellent...Clear
mechanisms are already in place under the ISI/ISC system for ensuring
that any required improvements are made by the school following an
inspection.”
As
the ISI goes on to
say:
“If no
other mechanism can be found for dealing with the small number of
schools needing improvement then the management standard would need to
be written in such a way that it did not weaken the expectation of high
standards already required in ISC
schools.”
Finally, it
makes the important point that
“The standard should not
require schools to operate a particular style of management, and care
should be taken to reflect the very diverse nature of schools within
the
sector.”
1.30
pm
The concern of
the independent sector about this new management standard is best
summed up by Jonathan Shephard, the chief executive of the ISC, who, in
response to a question from the hon. Member for Yeovil,
said:
“There is
a concern about creeping regulation and Ofsted-isation... if you
have Ofsted imposing a management standard on all independent schools,
then the way in which the schools are run will tend to conform with
that standard. You may or may not like independent schools... but
they do educate children at all levels of ability in a very good,
effective and workmanlike way. They do that because they are able to be
flexible and responsive and they have to answer to... parents,
children and universities. If you get a one-size-fits-all, increasingly
prescriptive manner from Ofsted...you may lose that flexibility
and independence and that is a very serious
worry.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills
Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 86,
Q195.]
I am astonished
by the hostile reaction to this proposal from the very respectable and
statutory body, the ISI. It is very surprising that the Minister and
the Department are proceeding with this measure, given the opposition
to it from the ISI, the very body that will be charged with
implementing and enforcing it. I wonder whether this reflects the
hostility to the independent sector from the Minister or the Department
or whether old Labour is simply exerting its influence in the dying
months of this Government. Amendment No. 123 seeks to delete the new
standard from the Bill. I hope that, on reflection, the Minister will
give it his support.
Jim
Knight:
At earlier sittings, the hon. Member for Bognor
Regis and Littlehampton introduced amendments on
behalf of the National Union of Teachers. He has now returned to a more
natural bedfellow in advocating so strongly for the Independent Schools
Council. He has been a passionate and consistent advocate of
independent schools in this House. I have no criticism of the standards
of members of the ISC. I have no wish to be vindictive, or any of the
other adjectives that he may have used, towards him. My Department has
considerable experience of the operation of the current regulatory
regime for all independent schools, not just those inspected by the ISI
or members of the ISC.
The regulatory regime was put in
place through the 2002 Education Act. Standards have contributed to
raising standards across the board in the independent sector and that
is carried forward in the Bill. Inspections against the standards have
found that in poor schools sustained failure to meet the minimum
requirements is generally a result of weak and ineffective leadership.
To address that, clause 78 introduces an additional standard, relating
to the quality of leadership and management in an institution. The
Thomas Francis Academy, which is not a member of the ISC, I hasten to
add, had a case that went to the Care Standards Tribunal recently. It
was ordered that that institution should be removed from the register
and closed. There was discussion at the tribunal in that case about
weak management and leadership having caused the
problems.
Putting
a new standard on the face of primary legislation will send a clear
message across the whole sector that effective leadership and
management are crucial to an institution’s successful operation.
Inspection evidence shows that there is a need for transparent
standards that secure effective strategic management and leadership,
enabling institutions to meet the other required standards. The new
standard should also ensure that institutions introduce management
systems and other mechanisms to make and sustain improvements where
standards are not
met.
The
hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
referred to the ISC’s argument in oral evidence that it is a low
minimum standard and that it will encourage schools with high standards
to lower the bar, effectively coming down to a lowest common
denominator—to the minimum required by regulation. I simply do
not accept that argument. Many independent schools are rightly proud of
their high standards of education, welfare and premises, which are well
above the minimum specified in regulation and in other
standards.
As
Mr. Shephard intimated when giving evidence, the best
independent schools are not driven by the basic standards currently
regulated for, and set out in legislation. Rather, he said,
they
“have to respond to
three demanding constituencies: parents, children and
universities.”
I am
absolutely confident that the high standards of management and
leadership currently enjoyed by those schools will continue,
irrespective of any change in legislation.
Mr.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South) (Lab): I entirely agree
with the position that my hon. Friend takes. As it happens, I also
agree with the overall
consensus of comments on independent schools. Does he agree that, in the
current economic climate, a proportion of independent schools, albeit a
small proportion, whether or not they are members of the ISC, face
considerable economic pressure? In those circumstances, it is important
for the reputation of the sector as a whole as well as for the
protection of parents that minimum standards should apply across the
piece.
Jim
Knight:
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is
important to have minimum standards, so that parents can be sure of
that minimum. However, it is not a standard that everyone has to fall
to. In responding effectively to the market, which is what they
generally want to do, independent schools will seek to out-compete each
other on the basis of their standards.
We also heard, in the
words of the witness and of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton, that the new standards are a further sign of
“Ofstedisation”—a slightly ugly word—and
the “creeping regulation” of independent schools; the
word “homogenised” was used. For ISC-affiliated schools,
it will usually be the Independent Schools Inspectorate and not Ofsted
that considers the ongoing quality of leadership and management
standards in an institution. If necessary, it will be for Ofsted to act
on the basis of the evidence provided in these reports. That is
extremely unlikely for the 50 per cent. or so ISI-inspected independent
schools because, as we have heard, they all do an extremely good
job.
The new standard
is designed to address the failings of smaller, poor-quality
institutions, which are inspected by Ofsted. Unless we introduce the
new standard, Ofsted will be prevented from reporting on
leadership and management failings in those institutions, leading to
the prolonged regulatory action that we see now.
I am not optimistic, but I hope
that my reassurances will have persuaded the hon. Member for Bognor
Regis and Littlehampton to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am sure that the Minister could have drafted the
Bill to confine the provisions to schools inspected by Ofsted. That
would have alleviated all the concerns of the ISC, which
represents those independent schools that educate 80 per cent. of
Britain’s independently educated
children.
Jim
Knight:
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some
independent schools are inspected by other inspectorates—the
School Improvement Service, the Bridge Schools Inspectorate and other
independent inspectorates. We are making provision in the Bill to allow
others to be approved and regulated to allow quality assurance. Does he
not see the merit in having a minimum standard that will have no impact
on Independent School Council members but which will give reassurance
across the whole
sector?
Mr.
Gibb:
The purpose of having an independent inspectorate is
that it can apply its own standards. We therefore have Ofsted
inspecting the inspectorate to ensure that inspections are carried out
in accordance
with those standards. Provided we are happy with the standards of the
independent inspectorates, it should be left alone.
The real concern is the phrasing
in the regulatory impact assessment that schools should be
“required” to appoint particular teachers. For example, a
school may not employ many qualified teachers, but instead employ very
well-educated people with first-class degrees from Britain’s top
universities who are trained to teach in the way that the school
prefers. They would not have a PGCE or qualified teacher status, but
Ofsted may come along and say, “I’m sorry, you have to
have that.” The whole ethos of the school, which is designed to
attract academically gifted people to teach, could be destroyed by a
specified requirement that they
conform.
Jim
Knight:
Would it help if I said that there is no
suggestion that we should require qualified teacher status in the
independent
schools?
Mr.
Gibb:
The response to that is “Yet”. Our
concern is what comes down the line, once the legislation is in place.
The Minister accused me—I do not regard what he framed as an
accusation in that way—of being an advocate of independent
education. Yes, I am an advocate of independent education—of
high-quality education wherever it is. I am an advocate of
knowledge-based education, wherever it is in the country. I am afraid
that in this country we have too little of that high-quality education,
which is part of the problem my hon. Friend the Member for North-East
Hertfordshire alluded to and part of the problem affecting so many
aspects of life in this country. I spend a lot of my time advocating
high-quality state education, such as that at the Mossbourne academy,
which educates children from a very deprived part of London but
achieves results that are better than 95 per cent. of comprehensive
schools.
The issue has
been aired widely. I am not happy with the response, but I am sure that
in weeks ahead the Independent Schools Council will continue to lobby
the Minister about how the measure—if it gets through the other
place—will be implemented. However, on the basis of the issues
that have been aired, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
78 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
