Examination of Witnesses (Questions 67-79)
COUNCILLOR LES
LAWRENCE
1 APRIL 2009
Chairman: We welcome Councillor Les Lawrence.
He is not an unfamiliar figure in this Committee. It is a pleasure
to see him here again in these—for us—rather acoustically
challenging circumstances. We will all have to shout a bit.
Cllr Lawrence: Is it because it
is 1 April?
Q67 Chairman: I wish that
there was a sensible reason. I did not know this for years, but
you have to queue up at 6.45 am to book a room, and Jenny, a member
of our wonderful staff, has been doing that for a very long time
with none of us knowing about it. Les, you know what the inquiry
is about. When this Committee was formed, we took it very seriously
that we would look at some of the main planks of educational reform
over the past 20 years. We looked at testing and assessment. Did
you come in for that one? Was it the last time you were here?
Cllr Lawrence: Yes, I did.
Q68 Chairman: It was a long
time ago when we did testing and assessment. Some people thought
that we wrote quite a good report on that, and you know what has
happened since then. Our report on the National Curriculum comes
out tomorrow so poor old President Obama will probably not get
a look-in in the newspaper columns. This is the third of the sittings
on accountability, Ofsted and all that. In parallel with that,
we shall also be looking at the training of teachers. We have
looked at some of the pretty fundamental aspects of schooling,
and we are getting into the meat of that today. Do you want to
say anything to get us started or do you want to go straight into
questions?
Cllr Lawrence: Let's dive straight
in.
Q69 Chairman: What is the
Local Government Association's view on the Government's policies
at the moment? Are you co-operating with the Government's policies
or do you take Eric Pickles's line that non-co-operation is probably
a good way forward—certainly for Conservative authorities?
Cllr Lawrence: The broad thrust
of the Every Child Matters agenda—the emphasis on attainment,
the concepts around school improvement, giving local authorities
the strategic role in determining the nature of educational provision
within the local authority and the role of being the champion
for the child and the young person within the school context,
as well as the wider service context—is one that local authorities
are very keen not only to carry out, but further develop. When
I appeared before the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning
Bill Committee, we at the LGA were able to say that we were very
supportive of the changing emphasis on and strengthening role
of local authorities in the 16-19 arena because that fits into
the overall 0-19 responsibility for the delivery of children's
services in all its elements. In that sense, there is a broad
welcome, especially for the recognition of the role of local government.
That is not to say that there have not been significant areas
where we have had robust discussions with the Government and when
at times we felt that there was an overly strong sense of direction,
or what some of my colleagues called the centralised control of
localised planning. That relationship is evolving. In regard to
some of my colleagues, I have to say that the law of the land
is the law of the land. Legislation is in place. Local authorities
have a duty to implement that legislation, but we take great pride
in actually taking the legislation, moulding and adapting it,
and using flexibilities to best serve those whom we have been
elected to serve within our localities. If any local authority
acted ultra vires, it would soon be called to account. In the
constitutional context, that particular pivotal role in the relationship
between central and local government is sometimes not fully appreciated
by those in the House who, quite properly, have a specific role
to fulfil.
Q70 Chairman: I am not trying
to make a party political point. The chronology of the development
of the National Curriculum, which we have just finished looking
at, has been pretty cross-party over 20 years with the centralisation
of the control of the curriculum. We get used to those parameters
being as they are. It is quite remarkable. I was talking to people
from Bury this week, who said that the Bury view is to take Eric
Pickles's recommendations—for example, there should be no
co-operation with a programme of Building Schools for the Future.
Is that just the idiosyncratic behaviour of one council, or is
it the advice from the LGA?
Cllr Lawrence: The advice from
the LGA is that the Building Schools for the Future programme
gives local authorities a pivotal role not only in improving the
facilities that our children and young people will learn in, but
in being innovative and looking at each of the learning environments
they are creating. We should be creating not bog-standard comprehensives—to
use a terrible phrase used by a certain person—but environments
within which youngsters can learn in different ways. They should
be very flexible alternative environments. They should be provided
in such a way that over the next 20 to 25 years they can be adapted
to suit the changing types of learning that will be promoted by
the teaching profession and the technologies that will support
the delivery of that education. They should support the nature
of the curriculum as it adapts to meet the changing needs of the
wider society. You cannot just use the same traditional methodology.
Pedagogical change will drive the nature of the learning environment.
Young people will have to become more flexible because over their
lifetimes and careers they will face a series of different challenges
and changes. You therefore want to try to create young people
who are not only good at inculcating, adapting, analysing and
utilising information and knowledge, but are themselves capable
of being flexible and adaptable.
Chairman: I have totally misled you,
Councillor Lawrence. For Hansard, it was Dudley, not Bury.
Let us get down to the main point of this meeting. David is going
to lead on the accountability regime.
Q71 Mr Chaytor: What should
schools be accountable for?
Cllr Lawrence: They should be
accountable for ensuring, in conjunction with the local authority,
that each young person fulfils their potential. That may sound
very simple, but they must look at the capability of each young
person and, within the constructs of the National Curriculum,
seek as far as possible to develop the learning environment for
that young person to enable them to be encouraged, supported and
challenged and to fulfil the potential that exists within each
and every young person. Obviously, they must then monitor that
through the various mechanisms at the various key stages and ultimately
with the public examinations at 16.
Q72 Mr Chaytor: What about
financial accountability?
Cllr Lawrence: Yes, the money
that is passported through the direct schools grant down to each
school via each local authority's agreed formula has to be the
basis on which the school is managed not only financially, but
in terms of the overall resources that are available. That can
be done in conjunction with the governing body and the local authority
in partnership. The local authority provides the oversight and
the financial support to enable the school to manage on a day-by-day
basis and must do so without interfering in that day-to-day operation.
Q73 Mr Chaytor: You have said
in terms of accountability for both development of potential and
the use of finance that the school has joint responsibility with
the local authority. Should the school be responsible to the local
authority? If not, to whom should the school be responsible?
Cllr Lawrence: You will find that
local authorities tend to look at the family of schools within
their jurisdiction as a partnership and, yes, leave them to operate
on a day-to-day basis. They allow the head teachers, with the
governing body, to oversee that day-to-day operation, but it is
still a partnership, because although they have the autonomy to
work in that way, they cannot do all that is required—diplomas
are a classic example—on their own. Therefore, they need
to be in partnership with the local authority. However, you could
equally argue, quite properly, that schools are accountable to
the parents and the young people themselves for that which is
provided to the young people and for how they report to, engage
with and enable the parents to participate as well. But it all
has to be done on a partnership basis. It is not people operating
in silos, or being part of, or separate from: it has to be a partnership,
otherwise success cannot be achieved to its fullest extent.
Q74 Mr Chaytor: That sounds
a little bit like blurring responsibilities. If something goes
horribly wrong, who is responsible: the head teacher, the chair
of governors, or the Director of Children's Services?
Cllr Lawrence: At the end of the
day, the local authority is the accountability of last resort.
It is for the local authority, by working in partnership, to seek
to ensure—using all sorts of performance management techniques
that do not interfere, but just provide oversight; a comfort blanket
if you like—that the trends of attainment and the processes
of financial management of the school are such that you can detect
at an early stage if things are going slightly awry, be it at
a particular key stage or throughout the school as a whole. You
will then seek to intervene by using SIPs or an advisory service
at an early stage. If a school descends into special measures,
then certainly many of my lead member colleagues and I feel that
that is a failure on behalf of the local authority for not having
had the foresight to use the powers that we have to intervene
earlier. I agree that there are occasions, however, where something
can go very badly wrong, very quickly; for example, if a governing
body and its members decide to go off on a particular tack, or
there are a whole series of new members and they decide to, shall
we say, have an agenda that is not necessarily in the interests
of the total school population. That does not happen that often,
but when it does the local authority has to take very serious
and urgent action, often having recourse to the Secretary of State.
Q75 Mr Chaytor: You have put
a lot of emphasis on the local authority's role, understandably,
but where does Ofsted fit into all that? Do you think that the
existing powers and procedures used by Ofsted are appropriate?
Cllr Lawrence: Ofsted is an important
part of ensuring that the accountability framework is working,
but more importantly that the levels of attainment are being achieved
for all pupils, not just a few. I think that it is quite right
for a body that is independent to provide additional challenge,
at regular intervals, to ensure that the processes, methodologies
and practices are appropriate for the outcomes that are expected.
Q76 Mr Chaytor: From the local
authority's point of view, are you satisfied with the current
Ofsted inspection framework and, for example, the frequency of
inspections?
Cllr Lawrence: On the frequency
and the framework, there are concerns within local authorities
about the consistency and the quality of inspections. Perhaps,
in part, there are those who still hark back to the days of the
HMI where there was a recognised respect, integrity and quality,
although the inspections often took a very long time. But these
days there are concerns about the quality and capability of some
of the inspection teams. Also, with the more snap inspections,
there are concerns about the extent to which they fully engage
governing bodies. There are certainly concerns within some governing
bodies that the degree to which they are allowed to participate
and be engaged is not as great as it could be.
Q77 Mr Chaytor: You have not
mentioned at all the role of central government, but it is they
who legislated for Ofsted and the testing regime, and to reduce
the National Curriculum. What is the school's responsibility to
central government, in terms of accountability?
Cllr Lawrence: The school's accountability
to central government is, in a sense, vested in the local authority,
ensuring that together they are meeting the legislative framework
and the standards that are expected—through the various
national indicators and other statutory targets. Quite rightly,
if that is not being achieved—collectively or individually—then
government have every right to call to account individual schools
or local authorities, or both.
Q78 Mr Chaytor: Finally, as
a representative of local authorities, are you satisfied with
the current accountability regime that the Government have imposed,
particularly in respect of testing?
Cllr Lawrence: I will give you
a politician's answer and say yes and no. Sometimes I think that
there is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the time scale between
setting a policy and its implementation on the ground in a school
or across the local authority, and seeing the proper outcome from
that policy being enacted. There is a tendency, at times, for
it to be rushed. In rushing, you do not necessarily allow that
policy to be fully implemented to the extent that would bring
about the total outcome that is being sought. Without appearing
to be unkind, sometimes the life cycle of Ministers itself hinders
the full implementation of policies, whereas the life cycles of
elected Members and school processes are such that they have a
life of their own. Sometimes governments of whatever party—this
tendency has been there for the last 20 or 30 years—try
to get an outcome that can be utilised in a way that is not always
to the benefit of policy implementation on the ground.
Q79 Mr Chaytor: Perhaps I
could ask one final question. If you had the power to change one
aspect of the current accountability system, what would it be?
Cllr Lawrence: I am not sure that
there is any one particular aspect that I would want to change,
other than to ask whether we could have a break from initiatives.
I know that it is difficult, because a Secretary of State, of
whatever power, might come in and say, "We are going to have
a moratorium on legislation and initiatives for three years. We
are going to bed down, ensure that everything that is in place
is working and then subtly adjust those areas that aren't."
The trouble is that in a very short space of time the media would
be on everybody's back, challenging why nothing was happening
in this or that area. But if I had the chance, I would ask for
a moratorium on legislation and initiatives for about three years.
|
