Mr.
Coaker: We have had an interesting, short
debate. As
the hon. Member for Yeovil knows, there is a two-year pilot on the
report card, which started in September 2009, so it is not the finished
article. There is a lot of work to be done on how we take it forward,
but if we manage to get the report card right, it will be a fundamental
and radical reform that will answer the demand of schools up and down
the country, which is, “Do not let our school be judged on just
the raw attainment scores.” The hon. Gentleman was at a
conference with me earlier today at which that plea was also heard.
Doing that is a real challenge, however, because as we all know, people
will often look at just that raw attainment
score. As
I have often said in Committee, the Government believe that we need to
move on from that, and the fact that that is difficult and a challenge
should not stop people. We all have experience of schools and, as
someone who has taught, I know that people have said over a
considerable period that schools should be judged not only on their raw
attainment scores, but on the progress that they make with their
pupils. The pupil progress part is about trying to do that. For the
first time, we are laying out specifically in a report that goes to
every parent something that will allow them to make a judgment about
that.
Similarly, on
pupil well-being—I will be brief, Mrs.
Anderson—what is it that parents often say when they go into the
school? Of course they are interested in the academic standards in the
school, but when I was teaching—I am sure my hon. Friend the
Member for Stourbridge and others have experienced this—people
would ask what the school was like with respect to bullying. They would
also ask, “Are people happy? Do they enjoy themselves? Are they
looked after?” The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole
must agree that that should be part of the whole picture, because
everything for which she has ever campaigned in Parliament has been
about trying to ensure that the rights, voice and happiness of the
child are not seen as some glib accessory that is unimportant. Those
things are a fundamental part of any judgment about how well an
institution is doing. It is difficult but important to include those
things. Similarly, even the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton thinks that parental perception is a good idea.
The
big issue that we are all united about is narrowing the gap in pupil
performance. How do we narrow the gap between social background and
educational attainment? I agree with the point made by both hon.
Gentlemen—it is difficult. However, if we were to accept the
amendments, we would not have the primary legislation available to
bring together the information that is required to try to come to a
determination about the grade. Exactly how that is done is part of what
the pilots are about. Some 700 schools throughout the country are
looking to see how the information is gathered. If we were to pass the
amendments, they would not be able to do that, and that would
completely preclude any attempt to try to introduce the report
card. Caroline
Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): I am not sure why pilots always
have to take two years. Will my hon. Friend explain what
work has been done in the lead up to the pilots with focus groups of
parents and others about what information they want? I hear what he is
saying about his background as a teacher and what teachers want, but
parents might want something a bit different that gives them a much
clearer idea about what is happening in a school. I accept his point
that this is not the final article, but I am a little uncertain about
whether, in the pilots, parents have just been given a
sample to work with, or whether they have been able to intervene on
what that sample should be providing for them in terms of oversight of
the school and what it is
doing.
Mr.
Coaker: That is a good point. My right hon. Friend is
right to point out the need to understand parents’ views.
Indeed, part of the work that was done to bring the measure together
involved looking at what parents were saying. Part of the ongoing work
through the pilots will be about not only teachers and education
professionals, but what parents think and the information that they
would find useful, so I can reassure her on that point. We have
involved and will involve parents, but they have said to us that, as
well as the raw attainment score, they want to know how to find out
some of these other things with regards to a school. They want to have
some way in which that can be reported to
them.
Martin
Linton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only effect of
the proposals of the hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
and for Yeovil would be to drive parents back on to the Ofsted grade
and the GCSE score as the only ways by which to judge schools? That
would result in all the other information fed into a school report
being
ignored.
Mr.
Coaker: Of course, raw attainment and what Ofsted says are
important, but my hon. Friend is right in the sense that, alongside
that, we must have a broader picture of what a school is about and what
it is achieving in a way that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for
Don Valley said, is acceptable and understandable to parents and, above
all, meaningful to them. We are attempting to do
that. To
reach those grades, we need to gather the information. I therefore ask
the hon. Member for Yeovil to reconsider whether he wishes to press his
amendments further. If we want to see whether we can make the policy
meaningful, we must have the power to gather the
information. As
for amendment 69, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
seems to believe that clause 20 has been used to substitute a power to
collect information
on the views of prescribed persons in place of the existing power in
respect of information about the continuing education, employment or
training of pupils leaving a school. In fact, the clause inserts a new
provision on collecting the views of prescribed persons as an addition
to the existing provision to collect such pupil information. I hope
that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that the amendment is unnecessary.
Following my brief but important comments, I hope that it will not be
pressed to a
Division. Mr.
Laws: I am, as ever, grateful to the Minister. This is a
huge opportunity, and I agree with all that he said about the
deficiencies in the existing accountability regime. The problem is that
that does not take us any further. It is one thing for the Government
to say that the existing accountability regime is poor, but it is
another for us to vote through something that does not deal with the
deficiencies of that regime. The policy has four weaknesses. First, it
should be administered not by the Department, but by Ofsted or the
local authorities. Secondly, and most importantly, there is no new
content, even though the Government make a virtue of that in the impact
assessment, in contrast to the comment made by the hon. Member for
Battersea. All the system does is to consolidate things that are
already available, and that is part of the problem because the things
already available are not doing to the
job. Thirdly,
there are already other mechanisms for assessments to be made of the
non-educational attainment elements. That happens in all the Ofsted
reports. Indeed, the model of the school report card reports the Ofsted
judgments on behaviour, safeguarding and other issues. Finally, we have
still not resolved the problem of whether or not there should be a
grade. It is important to the people working in the establishments that
they should have confidence that the grade is derived in a sensible
way. Even the Government’s report highlights the possible
anomalies that will arise when we grade, for example, one school as
grade 2 on effectiveness, pupils’ behaviour and safeguarding
and, at the same time, there is an overall score of A. There is already
a discrepancy and we need a thought-out and considered process of
reconciling an overall grade given by a report card and the fact that
it is different from the grade given by
Ofsted. My
problem is not that the policy is not well-meaning and not that it is
unnecessary, but that it is not right. We are told by people in schools
and those who represent teachers and parents, “Don’t
legislate for things that are half-baked. Don’t do things that
will deliver additional levels of cost and bureaucracy but will not do
the job.” It is with sadness that I say that although I will not
press any of the amendments to a Division, we will want to divide on
clause stand part. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
7.
Division
No.
10]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 20
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
21 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
22Schools
causing concern: powers of Secretary of State,
etc 1.45
pm
Mr.
Laws: I beg to move amendment 203, in
clause 22, page 22, line 10, at
end add— ‘(7) The Secretary
of State shall not exercise any of the powers conferred by subsections
(1) to (6) above
without— (a) consulting
the local authority in which the school is located,
and (b) receiving advice
supporting the planned actions from an independent body established to
make impartial assessments of school
standards.’. I
will not detain the Committee long on this amendment. Clause 22 deals
with schools causing concern and the powers of the Secretary of State.
I think I am right that it amends the last education Act to be passed,
which was agreed by Parliament just one week before this Bill was
published. The Government are clearly not thinking their proposals
through properly and are proceeding with such speed that new
legislation is replacing legislation that has not even had a chance to
bed
down. I
have a sense of dÃ(c)jà vu because, as in the last education
Act, there is a strong presumption in the Bill that the Secretary of
State knows best and that he or she should have powers that can be
exercised over failing schools, regardless of the views of the local
authority. The last education Act introduced powers for when the
Secretary of State essentially did not think that local authorities
were being tough enough, and clause 22 will give the Secretary of State
new powers to direct local
authorities. The
amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the local
authority and an independent school standards body before undertaking
intervention action. That would ensure that judgments that overrode a
democratically elected local authority on how school improvement was to
be delivered were informed by discussion with the local authority,
which is accountable for the oversight of local school performance
under the Government’s model and ours. It would also ensure that
there was ratification of the fact that the school concerned, which
could be closed down or have other action taken against it, was a poor
performing school on the basis of some form of rational assessment.
That should take into account the school’s circumstances, as we
discussed under clause
20. Our
concern is that this Secretary of State or a future Secretary of State
could unreasonably override a local authority without discussion or
independent evidence to show that a school was doing badly, and without
considering whether an improvement plan had been put
in place. We regard that as extremely heavy-handed, so we ask the
Minister to reconsider whether these draconian powers are
necessary. Mr.
Coaker: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the sensible
way in which he has presented his
amendment. Nobody
wants the Secretary of State to be intervening in every situation. That
would be ludicrous, clearly, and would override the rights and
responsibilities of the local authority to commission school places and
look after school improvement in its own
area. This
provision seeks to deal with those few cases in which the local
authority has not taken the action that needs to be taken with respect
to a particular school. If everyone but the local authority deems it
appropriate to give a warning notice to a school, it might be
appropriate for the Secretary of State to direct the local authority to
issue the warning notice. I am not talking about that as a first step,
however. I am not saying that we should immediately jump in and say,
“Whitehall knows best.” It should not be an immediate
reaction to a particular problem. The situation should arise in only a
few instances after a series of discussions with the local authority
and local representatives and reference to the school improvement
partner. In such circumstances it would be appropriate for the
Secretary of State to have, as the last resort, the opportunity to
intervene with respect to a local
authority. I
know that such a provision will not need to be applied to the vast
majority of local authorities in the vast majority of situations. None
the less, there have been situations—I can think of one or
two—in which the involvement and intervention of the Secretary
of State has led to an improvement in a particular school. There are
also one or two examples of when it has been difficult for the
Secretary of State to get the sort of local action that any reasonable
or sensible person would expect to happen. The amendment would
circumvent the Secretary of State’s ability to take any such
action.
Mr.
Laws: I understand the point that the Minister makes, but
that is not what the amendment says. It says that before exercising
such powers, the Secretary of State should have consulted the local
authority and received advice supporting the planned actions from an
independent body, which under his model would be Ofsted. Is he really
telling us that there are any circumstances in which the Secretary of
State would not want to do that before taking the serious action that
he
proposes?
Mr.
Coaker: I am not trying to say that at all. I am saying
that the amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State will
consult the local authority before taking action. The Secretary of
State will not look down a list of schools and their results and say,
“Hey, things aren’t going on very well there,” and
then direct the local authority to issue a warning notice. Such a
reaction would come about only after the sort of process to which the
hon. Gentleman refers. Of course we will consult the local authority.
In a small number of circumstances, if a local authority fails to take
the necessary action, the Secretary of State should have the power to
direct action in the interests of the pupils or communities in that
particular area. As for the independent person, the SIP and Ofsted will
be involved.
|
