Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
60-72)
RT HON
MICHAEL GOVE
MP AND DAVID
BELL
28 JULY 2010
Q60 Liz Kendall: I just want to
finish this point. Obviously, if you are welcoming expressions
of interest from parents and teachers, it is important that they
know what money might be available to them, even if there are
not any new builds. How much would it cost to refurbish a building
such as an observatory—not that there are many observatories
in some of the more deprived parts, certainly in my constituency?
How many building conversions would you estimate could come out
of that £50 million by the end of March 2011? You must have
a rough idea, considering that, according to your spokesperson
in the House of Lords, you have had 700 expressions of interest.
Michael Gove: A great many expressions
of interest have been received by both the Department and the
New Schools Network. The striking thing is that in Harlem, which
is an area of deprivation that I am sure ranks with Leicester,
buildings that the local authority there would never have thought
could become schools have become schools. There is probably a
philosophical difference between us. The view that you developed
and articulated so well during the course of the election campaign,
in government and so on has been that the state should do more,
prescribe and dictate. My view is that there is a huge amount
of potential, creativity and inspiration out there. We have seen
other countries that are committed to social cohesion and greater
equality—countries such as Sweden, or countries where a
President such as Barack Obama is committed to helping the very
poorest—using this money to provide people with transformed
educational opportunities. The striking thing about Sweden is
that when it introduced the free school legislation, it did not
have a separate pot of capital funding. In fact, it only had 85%
of revenue funding, but even on that basis, a number of new schools
were established. We have actually been more generous in our initial
provision than governments have in other countries. I would advise
you to stand back and watch inspirational teachers, whether in
Leicester or elsewhere, who are committed to using new buildings
in an imaginative way, help to lever up what I know you would
acknowledge has been the poor level of educational performance
in your otherwise beautiful city.
Q61 Lisa Nandy: I shall be very
quick, as the Chairman is glaring at me, and he is very close.
I am interested in the advice that is provided to groups that
are interested in setting up schools. I want to ask several questions.
First, did you take the decision to award the contracts for that
advice to the New Schools Network? Secondly, are you aware of
who else provides funding to the New Schools Network? Thirdly,
have you personally had any contact with any of the donors who
provide funding to the New Schools Network?
Michael Gove: The New Schools
Network was the stand-out organisation. It had experience beforehand
in providing support and advice to people, and it has organised
a number of events to which a variety of teachers, many of whom
I have already mentioned here, have come along.
Q62 Lisa Nandy: Did you make that
decision?
Michael Gove: Yes, I did. There
are other organisations that support school improvement. Some,
like the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, receive significantly
more than the New Schools Network, so I took the decision that
it was an appropriate organisation to which to give a grant. Before
a grant was given, I asked for a business plan to be produced
so that we could know exactly how the money might be spent to
ensure that the work was done. It is fair to say—the Permanent
Secretary may say more—that the relationship between the
New Schools Network and the Department has been fruitful and productive
and that the Network has been able to do work that the Department
would not have been able to do with the same degree of speed and
depth. I do not know who all the other funders of the New Schools
Network are, but I do know that it has among its patrons, governors
and trustees Sir Geoffrey Owen, the former editor of the Financial
Times; Professor Julian Le Grand, an adviser to the last Government;
Sally Morgan, again, a political secretary to Tony Blair; and
Paul Marshall, a leading donor to the Liberal Democrats. Because
the network is all-party—indeed, non-party—and properly
constituted as a charity, I presume that its funding is in accordance
with charity law. There are people whom I have met who will have
given money to the New Schools Network—I am sure of that.
How much they have given, and under what circumstances, I don't
know, but there are many people I've met who have given money
to the academies network.
Chair: I'm sorry, Lisa. I'd be pleased
if you could find other avenues to follow this up.
Q63 Lisa Nandy: Could I just say
that I have 15 questions in on this that are overdue for answers,
so if you could get answers for me that would be appreciated?
Michael Gove: I certainly will.
Q64 Conor Burns: Secretary of
State, you said earlier that one of your core objectives was to
bring the best qualified and most talented and motivated teachers
into the classroom and that that would be the most transformational
thing in education. With that in mind, what is your vision of
the future of teacher training? Could more teacher training be
done in the classroom in excellent schools? Local authorities
such as Lambeth, for example, have 99% pass rate targets for newly
qualified teachers coming into their schools; in fact, a few years
ago, Lambeth actually exceeded its target and got 100%. Can you
tell us a bit about your vision for the future of teacher training?
Michael Gove: Yes. At the moment,
there is an insufficient number of great schools that want to
take on more teachers to train and that are able to do so. There
is an arbitrary rule that says that 85% of the money that the
Training and Development Agency for Schools provides for teacher
training goes to teacher training colleges in effect, while only
15% goes to school-based teacher training. We want people who
are as well qualified as possible contemplating going into teaching,
which is why we back Teach First so generously. But I also believe
that teaching is a craft—that some people who are academically
gifted can be unsuitable to be teachers and that people with valuable
experience outside academic success can go on to become, and are,
brilliant teachers. But you learn how to be a great teacher by
observing already existing great teachers and, in turn, by being
observed yourself. It is that process of peer review that helps
drive up the quality of teaching overall. For that reason, I have
asked that existing regulations that restrict the number of hours
that senior leaders—head teachers—can observe other
teachers are removed, so that we have as much classroom observation
as possible to encourage people. It is also why I have asked that
the arbitrary limit on training be removed, so that we can have
more teacher training in the classroom. Funnily enough, when I
talked about teaching as a craft, The Times Educational Supplement—favourite
reading in the Gove household every Friday morning—had a
bit of a crack at me, saying, "Are you conflating teaching
with carpet fitting?" In a way, I was struck by that, because
it reflected one of the problems that we have as a society, which
is that we think that craft is somehow less worthy of respect
than academic excellence. The point I want to make is that teaching
at its best actually combines both: a love of the life of the
mind and an appreciation that teaching is, in the truest sense
of the word, a vocation—something that you learn by doing
and through practice.
Q65 Conor Burns: Without setting
arbitrary figures or targets, do you have a timeline in your mind
for how the movement from teacher training in colleges to much
more class-based training in centres of excellence in very good
school and classroom environments will take place and how quickly?
Michael Gove: The Permanent Secretary
and I are working on that with officials. We're going to publish
an education White Paper, God willing, in the autumn, and that
will be followed—again, Deo volente—by the publication
of some more legislation. What I would like to do is lay out the
broad vision that we have for education reform in the autumn and
to have a piece of legislation then, that deals with it; then
subsequently to have legislation that deals with some of the specific
concerns that I have about problems with special educational needs,
and some of the specific reforms that we need to make to legislation
on child protection as well; and then after that to try to legislate
as little as possible. It is critically important that we make
some big changes early on and then allow change to be driven from
within the system rather than from Whitehall.
Q66 Craig Whittaker: You've mentioned
today the culture of collaboration with schools; you've talked
about outstanding schools helping others. How does that fit in
with the Government's announcements last week that you are looking
at removing the duty on schools to co-operate through children's
trusts, the requirement for the local authorities to set up the
trusts and the requirement for trusts to produce the children's
plan? How do the two match?
Michael Gove: One of the things
that I think is important is to recognise that you don't get effective
collaboration through an over-bureaucratic and prescriptive method—saying,
"This is exactly how you should engage with everyone else
who cares about improving life for children". I think I am
right in saying—I am sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong—that
a children's trust was in place in Haringey at the time of Baby
Peter Connelly's death; but anyone who read, as I have, the serious
case reviews into his death will know that the existence of a
children's trust didn't guarantee the level of collaboration between
doctors, police, lawyers and others that you really needed in
order to improve outcomes for children. That's why one of the
other things that I've done—and have been anxious to do
quickly—is to press ahead with the publication of serious
case reviews. Yesterday, thanks to Birmingham's Conservative-Liberal
Democrat council collaborating with us, we had the first publication
of a full serious case review. The reason why I think it's so
important is that, before the general election, we were told by
the then Government, and by others, that this would be a disaster
for child protection; but the truth is that yesterday we saw a
sort of X-ray picture of what can go wrong. As a result, Birmingham
City Council and others are committed to learning how to co-operate
better. I think that rather than saying, "This is a prescribed
method of co-operation that I will dictate from the centre,"
it is far better to say, "You're professionals; we trust
you. These are some examples of what's gone wrong. You want to
learn from these. You want to examine your own systems. We'll
have Ofsted to inspect, in order to make sure that if there are
things that you've put in place—and it's your decision—that
aren't working, they can be held up to the light;" but as
a general rule I think it's more appropriate to say to the professionals,
"You work out your own arrangements." As the Permanent
Secretary said earlier, head teachers, GPs and others are more
often than not guided by a moral purpose. They don't need me or
a bureaucrat to tell them exactly how they should discharge their
responsibilities.
Q67 Craig Whittaker: I completely
understand what you are saying, but what process will be in place
for the schools that don't get the collaboration? What about the
support for those under-achieving schools? What mechanism are
we going to put in place to make sure that they get swept up,
and that they don't fail?
Michael Gove: I am very concerned
about those schools that are underachieving. There are two things
that I would say. The first is, as I mentioned earlier, that we
want to work with local authorities to work out the precise mechanisms
that they need, to challenge underperforming schools in their
areas. The second thing is—
Q68 Craig Whittaker: I am not
particularly talking about attainment at schools; I'm talking
around some of the issues that would be discussed through the
children's trust—safeguarding, for example.
Michael Gove: Again, there are
two things I'd say there. The first is that, when it comes to
safeguarding, the health White Paper makes it clear that part
of the responsibility for safeguarding will be part of the responsibilities
of the new health and well-being boards that will be part of what
county councils or unitary councils do. Improving safeguarding
has been at the heart of what my colleague Tim Loughton has been
doing, and one of the things that we wanted to make changes on
quickly; but my argument is that I am not convinced that trust
structures help with safeguarding most of all. In the Khyra Ishaq
SCR it is clear that the problem arose because you had a children's
services department that was repeatedly alerted by the school
to what was going wrong—not because a trust told the school
but because of a very good head and deputy head who rang the alarm
bell. But the children's services department in particular—I
don't want to demonise social workers, but it was particular people
within it—didn't know what its full powers were and didn't
exercise those powers responsibly. The head and the deputy head,
as I said, rang the alarm bell repeatedly. There were a number
of occasions when appointments were missed. I don't think there
is any bureaucratic structure that could have ensured that people
did their job, but now that we know what went wrong, rather than
people saying, "I've ticked that box, had this trust meeting
or whatever," people know that they're going to be judged
on real outcomes for real children. I think that is a step forward.
The other thing I was going to say in respect of schools that
are underperforming—not just in terms of attainment but
in terms of well-being—is that we're cracking on with getting
more schools that are underperforming taken over by existing academy
sponsors. On Tessa's earlier point, the original impetus for the
academies programme is one that we want to add energy to. The
final thing that I would say is that because I'm so worried about
safeguarding—because one in three local authorities that
have been inspected so far when it comes to safeguarding have
been found to be inadequate—we asked Professor Eileen Munro
to lead a review of safeguarding. She has a background in social
work: a social worker herself, a professor of social work now
and a backer of the publication of SCRs. The explicit aim of her
review is to give social workers a greater degree of control,
to trust them more and to trust their judgment more. One concern
that I have had in the past is that social workers have been a
wee bit reticent about exercising their judgment because they
have valued the relationship with the parents over the interests
of the child. Eileen is explicitly there in order to give social
workers that support and the backing they need. The final thing
I would say about the publication of serious case reviews is that
when we have had child deaths in the past, the finger has often
been pointed at social workers. I actually think once we publish
serious case reviews—we're going to publish the Baby Peter
ones in the autumn—we will see that there are some amazing
and inspirational social workers whose efforts have been frustrated
by other professionals who haven't done their jobs as they should
have done. I hope that the Munro review and the publication of
SCRs will help us understand the real difficulty that social workers
face and give us a greater degree of respect and understanding
for their job.
Q69 Craig Whittaker: A final question
about the five outcomes on the Every Child Matters agenda. How
are we going to monitor those and drive those forward?
Michael Gove: I think the important
thing about the five outcomes—I was discussing this with
some colleagues earlier today. I was going to say that I wonder,
if you asked Members of Parliament, "Can you name the five
outcomes for Every Child Matters?" how many Members of Parliament
would be able to recite them in the same way that we recite the
Lord's prayer at the beginning of the parliamentary session. I
don't think many would. For the benefit of everyone here, they
are: being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making
a positive contribution and securing economic well-being. As a
statement of five things that we'd like for children—
Ian Mearns: Amen.
Michael Gove: Exactly. They are
unimpeachable—gospel, even. But the point I would make is
that in a way, they are what every teacher will want to do. I
haven't met many teachers who say, "I want my children to
be unhealthy," "I'm going to put my children at risk,"
"I'd like them to have a horrendous time and fail at school,"
or "I'd like them to be negative and unemployed." Teachers
naturally reflect those priorities. As a list, as Ian says, amen
to that, but I don't think you need a massive bureaucratic superstructure
to police it. What I do think you need to do is give teachers
a bit more freedom to make it live in their own environment. The
final thing that I would say is that sometimes people say, "You
really need to emphasise well-being, because there's too much
emphasis sometimes on attainment." I know where folk are
coming from when they say that, but my own view is that if you
come from a working-class background, what you want is a school
where you will be well taught and where you will receive the qualifications
that allow you to decide whether or not you're going to get a
good job, go on to college or pursue an apprenticeship. Actually,
the single most important thing that a school can do is equip
children with the qualifications and self-confidence to take control
in the future. Those schools which have high academic attainment
are always schools where you have great extra-curricular activities,
strong pastoral care and teachers who take an individual interest
in how children are doing. As I said, I've got no problems with
Every Child Matters as a list, but I do think it's important that
we recognise that it should be policed in a hands-off way.
Chair: Last question to you, Pat.
Q70 Pat Glass: I was struck, Secretary
of State, by what you said right at the end—that high-achieving
schools are always schools where children's well-being is taken
into account. I have to say that in my experience that is not
always the case, and that actually some of the most high-achieving
schools are the schools where there are the widest gaps between
those who are achieving well and those who are achieving not so
well. So I think that I can take you around by the hand and show
you many of those, if you would like to go around.
Michael Gove: A school where there
is a huge gap in achievement is not a high-achieving school, in
my books.
Q71 Pat Glass: Right. Finally,
I wanted to ask you about ContactPoint. I understand that the
grant has now been cut for ContactPoint—
Michael Gove: Yes.
Pat Glass: —but that the statutory
duty on local authorities remains, and that redundancy notices
are now going out for many of the staff who work in ContactPoint,
many of whom are very highly trained and have been specifically
trained by Mr Bell's department. How do you see that operating,
if local authorities no longer have the money and if the trained
staff who are paid by that funding are going? How are local authorities
going to deliver on the statutory requirements around ContactPoint?
Michael Gove: We've made it clear
that we're going to move from a ContactPoint system, whereby every
child is tagged and monitored, to a system that is much more proportionate
and better targeted. It's my view that the investment that we
make in information technology to ensure that children are safe
and looked after should be targeted on those children who are
at risk. I remember that, before the election, both the Liberal
Democrats and the Conservatives were committed, for very similar
reasons, to moving away from the ContactPoint system. I had a
conversation with Lord Laming, who is a great man; his contribution
to child welfare is greater than any contribution that I will
ever be able to make. But I disagreed with him on ContactPoint.
When I asked him why he had proposed it, he said that he had been
impressed by other countries where the state had details on every
child, from birth all the way through to 16. I thought that that
was disproportionate. I think that what we need, and Tim Loughton
is working with local authorities on this, is an IT system that
effectively flags those children who come to the attention of
the authorities or services because there are particular needs,
so that we can concentrate our efforts on them. I have been struck
by the fact that many of the people who have been engaging with
the Munro review and many people elsewhere agree with us that
it is important that we have that focus. I do not think that any
local authority will be judged adversely by us for wanting to
move quickly towards that more proportionate scheme. Certainly,
I know that Tim Loughton is very anxious to use the expertise
that has been built up in the new and more targeted approach that
we want to take, which I also have to say is more respectful of
civil liberties.
Q72 Pat Glass: May I add that
I am not wedded to ContactPoint? I just wonder if it is not sensible
at least to continue the grant for the staff, so that we do not
lose that expertise as you move on to a better system.
Michael Gove: I very much take
your point. One of the conversations that I had with Tim was about
ensuring that everything that we've learned, through the process
of helping to set up ContactPoint, is used in the process of coming
up with a better and more targeted scheme. So it's very important.
Pat Glass: Redundancy notices are going
out now. You need to act now.
Michael Gove: I was going to say
that with a more proportionate scheme fewer people will necessarily
be employed, but we do want to make good use of the expertise
of those people who've got the most to contribute.
Chair: Thank you. Damian, are you happy
to—?
Damian Hinds: I can let it go.
Chair: Excellent. That was the right
answer. [Laughter.]
Secretary of State and Permanent Secretary,
thank you very much for coming and giving evidence to us this
morning.
Michael Gove: Thank you very much,
Mr Chairman. If any Members had any points where I had promised
to write and I or the Permanent Secretary have forgotten about
them, if they would be kind enough to let me know I will seek
to follow those points up. I am very grateful to you all for having
this "after-school" lesson, which I've certainly benefited
from.
Ian Mearns: It's a club—an after-school
club.
Michael Gove: It's a club. I hope
that you all have a wonderful summer holiday and I look forward
to seeing you again in September. Thank you very much.
|
