Mr.
Gibb: I have been trying to resist the temptation to
intervene. Would the hon. Gentleman accept that a school in a leafy
suburb that has fewer than 30 per cent.
achieving five or more GCSEs including English and Maths is a school
that warrants intervention from
somebody?
Mr.
Laws: I would certainly suggest that such a school
warrants intervention of some kind, but we are here being invited to
give that power of intervention on an extremely vague and unclear
basis. I shall come on in a second to look in particular at clause 192
and how it seeks to define failing schools and who it gives power
to.
Mr.
Gibb: If the hon. Gentleman accepts that some intervention
is necessary for a school in a leafy suburb that has fewer than 30 per
cent. achieving five or more GCSEs at grade A* to C, why then does he
not accept that the same intervention should take place if the school
is sited in an inner
city?
Mr.
Laws: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. I am not
suggesting that action should not be taken to improve schools with very
poor results. However, I do not support a crude approach that suggests
that the only way to measure whether schools are doing a good job is
based on a 30 per cent. threshold, aside from whether they could be
schools that are improving very rapidly from, say, a 5 per cent.
starting point, or schools that are achieving 50 per cent. five A* to C
grades at GCSE when they should be achieving a figure of 80 or 90 per
cent., based on their intake. I am not seeking in any way to undermine
the drive for school improvement and I am trying to ensure that local
authorities are properly held to account in their job as commissioners.
Indeed, it would be a major deficiency in our approach if we were not
to hold the commissioners to account, because clearly that has not
worked in the past. I am merely questioning how the Government are
doing that and whether there is any coherent—to use the
Committee’s favourite word today—thinking behind the
measure. The
existing power that the Secretary of State has is to require local
authorities in England to obtain advisory services where the local
authority has schools in either of the categories requiring special
measures or significant improvement—in other words, Ofsted
categories with some form of independent ratification of the extent of
the problem—and where the LEA does not appear to be effective or
likely to be effective in improving those schools or other schools in
their area that may be placed in these
categories. Clause
192(2) inserts an additional trigger for the Secretary of
State’s power to require the local authority to obtain advisory
services. Proposed new subsection (1A)(a) says that a local
education authority in England can have intervention from the Secretary
of State where it maintains a disproportionate number of low-performing
schools. The questions are how the assessment of low-performing schools
is made and whether the assessment has any credibility. Those questions
arise because of the definition of a low-performing school in proposed
new subsection (1B). It
states: “In
subsection (1A) ‘low-performing school’ means a school at
which the standards of performance of pupils are unacceptably
low.” It
will be obvious to most Committee members that that is pretty much a
tautology and that it does not help in any way to determine whether the
schools really are low-performing.
Somewhat
predictably, to deal with that problem, we have new proposed new
subsection (1C), which
states: “For
the purposes of subsection (1B) the standards of performance of pupils
at a school are low if they are low by reference to any one or more of
the
following— (a)
the standards that the pupils might in all the circumstances reasonably
be expected to
attain; (b)
where relevant, the standards previously attained by
them; (c)
the standards attained by pupils at comparable
schools.” Our
concern is that that is all still extremely vague and that we are
giving powers to the Secretary of State to intervene in local
authorities without there being necessarily a proper basis of proof
that those are failing local authorities. If the Secretary of State is
to intervene at all—we question whether he or she should be a
fundamental part of the system of school improvement, rather than a
distant backdrop—he or she must intervene on the basis of an
objective assessment of whether schools in a local authority area are
really
failing. There
is clearly a danger that the Government could waste time commissioning
or insisting that local authorities commission advisory services when
they do not need to do so, or that the current Government or a future
Government could decide to target local authorities that are not under
their political control—for example, because they might be
embarrassed by the consequences of targeting local authorities that are
under their political control.
If we have
proposed new subsection (1B) as a tautology and this degree
of vagueness in proposed new subsection (1C), there must be
serious concerns. Even proposed new subsection (1C)(c), which seems to
have a more sensible benchmark embedded in it—seeing
if “the
standards of performance of pupils at a school are low by reference
to...the standards attained by pupils at comparable
schools”— raises
all sorts of questions, with which the Government are trying to grapple
in the school report card that they are considering
developing. 11.30
pm There
are some difficult questions. For example, the Government might say
that they could compare a number of different schools that have similar
numbers of pupils on free school meals to determine whether the
standards in one school were unacceptably low. However, the performance
of many youngsters who are not entitled to free school meals can often
be as poor as those entitled, particularly if those youngsters come
from low-income families where the family income may be just above the
level of benefits, where the parents may be on the minimum wage or
where there may be low educational aspirations. There are also enormous
differences in the performance of different ethnic groups. If we chose
to compare groups of youngsters in particular schools with a similar
free-school-meal composition, we could find that the reasonable
expectations for the level of performance might be quite
different—for example, comparing a school with a large number of
Asian or Chinese pupils with pupils of a different ethnic
background. We
question whether the Government are clear and convincing enough about
how they are going to use the powers fairly. So, we have proposed a
couple of amendments to the clause, the first to appear in the Bill
being amendment 1, which would
insert “judged
by Ofsted to be”
in line 10 of page 111.
The clear purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the means for
judging whether schools are low performing is not some national
challenge-style, crude sledgehammer approach, but is based on a proper
appraisal and assessment of the
school. I
am willing to acknowledge that the assumption that every school that is
failing needs to be assessed and ratified by Ofsted is a challenge. In
our discussion the other day I raised the circumstances in which Ofsted
might not have a detailed oversight of every school on an ongoing
basis, particularly under the new light-touch inspection regime.
However, what we are talking about here is intervention against a local
authority. It is surely reasonable—highly desirable—that
Ofsted should be involved in that evaluation. I would like the
Government to be much more rigorous in using Ofsted to hold local
authorities to account, particularly as there seems to be such low
confidence in Government in the ability of many local authorities to
hold schools to account that we have had to establish a YPLA in order
to have oversight of the academies as a group.
I would like
Ofsted to play an important role in holding local authorities to
account. I would like its reports on local authorities to be
transparent, up front, given a large amount of publicity and, perhaps,
filtered away from the other reports on children’s services,
which are dealing with such sensitive issues in the aftermath of Baby
P. I want to ensure that the reports on the job that local authorities
are doing are based on a sensible and realistic appraisal by an
impartial body, not simply on the basis of a political
assessment. Amendment
148 would reinforce that message by deleting “the Secretary of
State” from page 110, line 38, thereby ensuring that the
responsibility for determining whether a local authority
has “a
disproportionate number of low-performing
schools” is
transferred to
Ofsted. We
believe that those changes are sensible and would like the Government
to reflect on them. They should certainly do so before developing the
performance score card, which might give a more reliable basis for
making the judgments that the Minister
wants. I
will conclude with some points on clause stand part, because I assume,
Mr. Chope, that you would like that to be dealt with in this
debate rather than having a separate clause stand part debate. I wish
to raise the oversight of academies with the Minister. Although the
freedoms that academies have should be protected and granted to more
schools, there must be a proper accountability framework for academies.
A number of them are already failing. As the academy programme expands,
there are bound to be more failures, because there are failures in any
school
type. The
Policy Exchange report highlights deficiencies in the academy
programme. It points out that the DCSF can cancel existing contracts if
the academy is put into special measures by Ofsted or if the sponsor is
at risk of bankruptcy. If the academy has not infringed those
requirements, the DCSF must give seven years’ notice if it
wishes to cancel the contract, as must the sponsor. Given that the
number of academies will expand, the Government should consider how
they will be held to account under the provisions of the Bill that deal
with bodies that hold accountability for individual schools.
In expanding
on his party’s position the other day on the YPLA provisions,
the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said that in future,
federations of academies and other schools are likely to be a necessary
driving force in holding schools to account. I am not sure I agree with
that, but it raises the question of how those federations should be
held to account. When taking these powers to ensure that local
authority commissioners do their job, the Government should reflect on
how they will hold to account federations of academies or individual
academies. They must consider whether their intervention powers are
strong enough. We could end up with the Government taking increasingly
strong intervention powers for local authorities and maintained
schools, while leaving academies unprotected in relation to their
performance
accountability.
The
Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is right to anticipate that I
do not intend to have a separate clause stand part
debate.
Jim
Knight: The hon. Gentleman has described the clause and
the amendments. The clause will ensure that the Secretary of State can
challenge and support local authorities in which the standards in a
number of schools remain low, with no evidence from the authority of
sustainable improvement. There must be robust evidence of low
standards, such as data on attainment and pupil progression in relation
to reasonably expected standards using standards previously attained by
them or by pupils at comparable schools. Such local authorities will be
given the expertise to support and challenge their schools. The
advisory services will be external educational experts or a named
school that will bolster the local authority’s ability to
support its
schools. Under
the amendments it would be the role of Ofsted, not the Secretary of
State, to judge whether the performance standards of a school are
unacceptably low and thus whether the local education authority
maintains a disproportionate number of low-performing schools. It is
important to remember that the Secretary of State, not Ofsted, is
responsible for school standards and is accountable to Parliament on
them. As a principle of public law, he has to act reasonably and
rationally. He sets the targets and collects data on standards
annually. He therefore maintains a legitimate view of standards. Given
that accountability, the Secretary of State must have the freedom to
take the ultimate decision about when he deems standards in schools to
be too low and to direct a local education authority to obtain the
services that I mentioned. However, we do not anticipate that he will
do that in isolation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that
goes some way towards his
argument. We
intend that the Secretary of State will consult Ofsted, when he deems
it necessary, before exercising this power, and he will certainly want
to look at the context within which the school operates. The amendments
would fetter his ability to act swiftly and effectively and support
local authorities to remedy local performance in their schools and take
responsibility for ensuring that the local authority targets, which he
has set and is accountable to Parliament for, are
met. Academies
already have a proper accountability framework. Many of the powers to
appoint additional governors are modelled on legislation dealing with
schools
causing concern. The accountability is there through me and we have the
measures that we need in the funding
agreement. Mr.
Laws: I think that the Minister said that before using the
intervention powers the Secretary of State would always consult Ofsted.
It would be useful if he confirmed that. It would also be useful if he
said what would happen if Ofsted responded to the Secretary of State,
saying that it did not believe that the criteria set out in new
subsection (1C)(a) to (c) were met in relation to that local authority.
Would the Secretary of State pay any attention to
that?
Jim
Knight: I said that it is our intention that the Secretary
of State will consult Ofsted where he deems it necessary. We do not
intend to give Ofsted the power of veto. In the end, the Secretary of
State is accountable and he will make the decisions. I hope that, on
that basis, the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Laws: We got so close, but did not quite get there. The
nub of the issue is not accountability or who triggers the action. I
can accept that, given that the Secretary of State is a democratically
accountable national politician, he might need to have some role in
insisting over the head of the local authority that advisory services
should be brought in. The nub of the amendments is whether the judgment
and evaluation should be an objective, serious and impartial one made
by a credible body on the basis of a careful assessment of school
performance, or whether it should be made by—if I may say
so—a here today, gone tomorrow Secretary of
State. Even
though the Minister indicated that the Secretary of State might consult
Ofsted when he thought it necessary, I do not think that he therefore
implied that he would always do so, because the wording suggested that
that was effectively optional and it left me with exactly the same
concerns that I expressed in my main comments, which are essentially
that a Secretary of State can make up his or her own assessment of
whether a local authority is doing a good job and can exercise the
powers of intervention without a basis in fact. That concern has been
triggered by the crude way in which national challenge has
operated.
| 
