 House of Commons |
Session 2009 - 10 Publications on the internet Children, Schools and Families Bill |
Children, Schools and Families Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Sarah
Davies, Sara Howe, Committee
Clerks † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 4 February 2010(Afternoon)[Janet Anderson in the Chair]Children, Schools and Families BillClause 19School
improvement partners
Amendment
proposed (this day): 68, in clause 19, page 17, line 33, after
‘other’, insert
‘educational’.—(Mr.
Gibb.) 1
pm Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing 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.
David Laws (Yeovil) (LD): Welcome back to the Chair,
Mrs. Anderson. Before the Committee adjourned, we were
discussing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis
and Littlehampton and those in my name and that of my hon. Friend the
Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. I was looking at the impact
assessment, which is always interesting on this Bill, and I mentioned
the criticisms in that impact assessment of the existing SIP system,
which was described as an inefficient use of resources.
The impact
assessment also makes clear what the clause is designed to
tackle—the inability of SIPs to get involved outside
the narrow area of educational attainment—and the issue is
whether the system could be restructured to provide SIPs with a greater
role and to reduce the role of link advisers. The amendments relate
directly to those issues and to whether this is a sensible way of
focusing the role of SIPs and whether the expenditure of public money
is justifiable, especially as the Government estimate it to be about
£325 million at present
values. I
should like to echo some of the criticisms and concerns that were
expressed earlier by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton. Amendments 68, 198 and 199 raise the issue of whether we
want SIPs to have a wider focus. Do we want them to be involved in
well-being and other matters, or is it sensible for them to focus on
what is presently the core responsibility of educational
attainment?
In part, the
answer depends on what role we see for SIPs. In our view, SIPs could
play a role as part of the accountability mechanism that enables
schools to deliver, particularly on their core educational
requirements. That could be a mechanism for local authorities to engage
with schools through individuals with relevant expertise, so that they
understand what job they are doing, find out whether educational
attainment is being improved, and potentially, as the Government
indicate, broker support from other organisations. Some people might
feel that the local authority is often not qualified to offer much of
that support, but there could be a role for SIPs in brokering support.
However, there is an issue about whether that is the right way for SIPs
to deliver on that responsibility.
The
amendments raise three issues. First, whether it is sensible
for SIPs to have that responsibility for well-being. I am not clear
that it is sensible, which is why amendments 198 and 199
essentially support the thrust of amendment 68.
The second issue relates to amendment 194, tabled by the
hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, and is whether schools
should have a veto over their SIP. That is not something that we would
support, as we believe that SIPs should have a role not only in
supporting schools, but in holding them to account.
We certainly
would not want local authorities to ignore the situation where a school
expressed concerns that a SIP was not appropriately qualified. If that
is part of the accountability mechanism, we are not convinced that it
makes sense for schools to have an outright veto over their SIP, as it
is possible that the SIP might deliver unpleasant news or have a view
that a school is failing. If the governing body is able to veto the SIP
that seeks to hold it to account, it would not be a very effective
mechanism for holding a school to account.
Is this the
right way to deliver that type of school improvement and accountability
in the future? We need to look at the prescriptiveness involved, not
only in the way that the Government want to widen the role of SIPs, but
in the assumptions made in the impact assessment about how SIPs will
operate in the future, the number of days that they will spend in
individual schools and how that will be linked to highly or poorly
performing schools.
We appear to
have a prescriptive, top-down mechanism for central Government to
deliver a system of local accountability and improvement. Typically for
this Government, the system is not genuinely localised: local
authorities cannot decide whether they want SIPs, whether they want to
use existing link advisers, how they want to support schools and how
many days they want the SIPs to spend in schools. It is extremely
top-down and
prescribed. We
are also worried whether the policy will deliver the zero net impact,
which is what the Government are estimating and which depends heavily
on the assumption that the scrapping of links advisers would offset the
additional costs of school improvement partners. Amendment 87 would
allow local authorities greater freedom and flexibility in how they use
SIPs. It would allow them to opt out of the guidance that the
Government otherwise intend to impose on local authorities.
Such changes
would genuinely deliver a SIPs system that would be adaptable on the
basis of a local authority’s priorities and correspond with its
views of what it needed to support school improvement. It would not be
a top-down approach that would tell local authorities how to use SIPs to
deliver local accountability—a role that should be provided by
the local authority. The clause is typical of the Government, and what
we fear is embedded in
it.
The
Minister for Schools and Learners (Mr. Vernon
Coaker): Good afternoon to you, Mrs. Anderson,
and members of the Committee. The amendments tabled by the hon. Members
for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for Yeovil would remove the two
emphasises given to the SIP’s role to improve the well-being of
pupils at the school. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton believes that the clause would dilute the emphasis that a
SIP should have on improving educational attainment at the school. Both
emphasises are necessary.
In many of
the schools that have featured in our debates, we cannot talk about
improving standards without considering the well-being of the pupil.
Someone acting as the broker between the school and the local authority
would need to be involved in what was happening outside a school in
respect of health, families, youth provision, social services,
children’s services, employment and housing if that person is to
address school improvement overall. The school improvement partner is
the right person to do that. We will not take away the responsibility
from the local authority, but the person will act as a direct contact
with the school. Action or improvement plans will be a matter for the
school to work out to the SIP’s satisfaction. I am a little
surprised at the amendment, as it is a fundamental part of a
SIP’s role not to see the school in
isolation. The
hon. Member for Yeovil is right that significant investment will be
used in such matters. It is expected that SIPs will spend more time
working with schools to deliver an outcome, which is extremely
important, particularly if it is seen in the context of the holistic
view of improving standards in schools. Of course, it matters to the
hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for Yeovil that we
focus on educational standards. I am not saying that there should be no
such focus, but just that well-being should be a part of it.
On a further
point made by the hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and
for Yeovil, a national strategies survey indicates that 80 to 90 per
cent. of head teachers think that their schools benefit from school
improvement partners. Another amendment proposes that schools should be
able to disregard advice with respect to SIPs. I do not accept that; we
would to go too far if we said that a SIP could not stay in role if the
heads and governors say that they did not want them. It may be that
there is a breakdown in the relationship or that a head teacher is not
willing to confront the improvement that is necessary in the school,
rather than the school improvement partner being the problem.
If we were to
pass amendment 194, tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton, a head teacher could say, “We don’t like
that improvement plan,” even though most other people thought
that it was a good idea, and the school improvement partner would be
left with no role at all, which would not be an appropriate way
forward.
School
improvement partners are an important part of the school reform system.
Including well-being as part of their tasks and responsibilities is a
crucial part
of raising standards and ensuring that opportunities exist for all our
young people in all our schools. With those remarks, I hope that the
hon. Gentleman will withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Laws: I shall not prolong the debate too much. It is clear
that there is a difference of opinion between ourselves and the
Minister on at least two of the issues in the amendments. I want to
register our continuing concern that, although the rhetoric of
Government policy focuses on local accountability, the extent to which
the provision seeks to prescribe how each local authority should
essentially run its own systems of school accountability and the
delivery of advice about school improvement is very depressing and
reflects still a mentality in which Westminster and Whitehall know
best, rather than assuming that local areas have the skills and ability
to design systems that are based on their own needs, rather than on
some central prescription.
Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): I am
keen to progress rapidly, so that we can get to the home education
clauses. Many people, both inside and outside the Committee, are keen
for us to consider such important issues for a considerable time, so I
shall make two quick points. I do not believe that a concern over
diluting the emphasis on educational standards is my worry; it is
whether the same person can, with expertise, advise both on raising
educational standards and on the well-being issues, because they are
very different matters.
My second
point relates to a breakdown in the relationship between the SIP and
the head. Such a breakdown may well be the head’s fault in some
circumstances. None the less, if a SIP is meant to be a critical friend
and not an adversarial inspector, regardless of who is to blame for the
breakdown in the relationship, a new SIP is needed. The National Union
of Teachers is concerned about that and feels that there should be an
appeals process for governing bodies in the event of a breakdown and
the SIP is regarded as unsuitable. I have made my two comments; we have
had a good debate; and I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
19 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 20Provision
of Information about Schools,
etc
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 69, in clause 20, page 18, leave out
lines 11 to 16 and
insert— ‘(a) for subsection
(2) there is
substituted— “(2)
For the purposes of this
section— (a) information
as to the views of prescribed persons about the
school, (b) information about
the continuing education of pupils leaving a
school, (c) information about
the employment or training taken up by such pupils on leaving a
school, is to be treated as
information about the school.”’.
Amendment
201, in
clause 20, page 19, line 15, at
end insert— ‘(c) assist in
making informed judgments about the comparative effectiveness of
individual schools and colleges in providing high quality education, by
facilitating comparisons of schools and colleges which have similar
pupil characteristics in relation to special needs, economic advantage
and disadvantage, and other relevant
factors.’. Amendment
202, in
clause 20, page 19, line 19, after
‘England’, insert
‘the OFSTED, subject to the approval
of’. Amendment
235, in
clause 20, page 20, line 3, at
end add— ‘(4) The use of any
information obtained as a result of this section shall be the subject
of an annual report to
Parliament.’.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2010 | Prepared 5 February 2010 |