Mr.
Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for his
response. He has confirmed that the purpose of the clause is to firm up
the vagaries of the law. I am grateful to him for spelling out that
there is a consultation process in play to determine what is meant by
educational excellence, capacity and track record. It would have been
helpful to have an indication of whether it means a proportion of GCSE
grades or an Ofsted judgment of outstanding leadership, management or
something else.
Mr.
Coaker: All those things—the standard and quality
of education, extra-curricular activities and Ofsted
inspections—will be taken into account. The weight that we give
to each of them is also important.
Mr.
Gibb: I am grateful for that further clarification. I look
forward to seeing the first list of schools that are regarded as having
educational excellence, capacity and track record in the next two to
three weeks, and I will look at that list
carefully. I
was disappointed in the Minister’s response about other bodies.
It is important that such important judgments are taken by Ministers
who are accountable to this place, and not by quangos and other
non-departmental public bodies that are not directly accountable for
their decisions to this place. In the current atmosphere of trying to
make politics more transparent and accountable, I do not think that it
is right that we start to devolve decisions to such bodies. It
undermines confidence in the parliamentary system and the purpose of
elections if decisions are ultimately taken by people who are not
subject to elections and parliamentary accountability. I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
19School
improvement
partners
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 68, in
clause 19, page 17, line 33, after
‘other’, insert
‘educational’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 198, in clause 19,
page 17, leave out lines 35 to
38. Amendment
194, in
clause 19, page 17, line 38, at
end insert— ‘(2A) After
subsection (2) there is
inserted— “(2A) A
person may not be appointed as, or remain, a school improvement partner
unless he is for the time being approved by the governing body and head
teacher of the
school.”’. Amendment
87, in
clause 19, page 18, line 3, leave
out ‘must’ and insert
‘may’. Amendment
199, in
clause 19, page 18, line 5, leave
out subsection
(4).
Mr.
Gibb: Clause 19 extends the role of SIPs from that of
improving standards at a school to that of improving the well-being of
pupils. It is odd that the Government want to widen the role of SIPs
beyond that of education when they were established only in
2006.
There has been no proper evaluation of whether they are a useful
development and provide value for money. I have spoken to heads
throughout the country about SIPs, and I have found mixed views. Some
see them as an expensive distraction. The NASUWT shares that
perception, and
states: “The
NASUWT already has concerns about the effectiveness of the SIP
programme and whether it does provide appropriate support and challenge
to head teachers and governing bodies on school
standards.”
On clause 19, it
says: “The
NASUWT remains unconvinced that it is necessary to widen the scope of
the role of School Improvement Partners...so that they provide not
only advice...for the purpose of improving standards at the school
but also other prescribed services to improve the wellbeing of pupils
in the
school.” The
General Teaching Council appears concerned and says that
there “are
risks associated with this
development.” It
fears that enhancing the role might restrict the ability to
recruit “if
the SIP role became onerous for many serving head teachers, there would
be a loss to the system in terms of knowledge
transfer.” It
goes
on: “The
GTC is also concerned about the local authority being over-reliant on
the SIP for evidence of school performance, given its responsibility to
intervene in underperforming
schools.” It
seems that the role of a SIP is transforming and has transformed over
the past three years from one of providing advice to more of an
accountability mechanism. Amendment 68 would insert the word
“educational” into the clause before
“services” to confine the advice that SIPs offer to
educational matters. The key role of SIPs should be to help raise
educational standards. If they are meant to give both educational
advice and advice about well-being, we move beyond the expertise of any
one person into the realm of poor quality either of educational advice
or advice on well-being. It is easier to be an amateur in someone
else’s field than a professional in our own. The danger with the
policy is that we would be encouraging
amateurism. Amendment
194 was inspired by the worries of the NUT, which
states: “The
NUT believes that it would be desirable for this clause to be amended
to introduce an appeals process for governing bodies, in the event that
they consider a designated SIP to be unsuitable.”
The amendment requires
the approval of both the head teacher and the governing body of a
school before a SIP is appointed. As the purpose of a SIP is to help
and advise rather than to inspect or criticise, I cannot see why the
amendment would be a problem for the Government. A SIP need not be
somehow independent, like some form of inspector. A SIP is meant to be
a critical friend, so schools should have a say in who that critical
friend ends up
being.
Mr.
Laws: I should like to talk to the amendments we have
tabled on the clause. Although we are all conscious of the limited time
left for scrutinising the Bill, the clause is important. According to
the Government’s impact assessment, the clause is the most
expensive part of what is quite an expensive and bureaucratic Bill,
with an estimated cost of some £325 million, in net present
value terms, for the school improvement partners.
As ever, the
impact assessment gives us an interesting insight into the
Government’s present view of the role of SIPs. Yet again, the
individual writing those frank impact assessments is to be commended
for their clarity in describing and criticising existing Government
policy. The impact assessment says that the
“current role of
the SIP in schools is an inefficient use of resources as the role of
the SIP is too heavily focused on educational attainment, where schools
could better benefit from challenge”,
and
that “the
role of the SIP is often duplicated by other LA
staff.” Inevitably,
for the Government, it says that government intervention is necessary
to correct the
inefficiency. 10.25
am The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
