---

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has introduced Amendment No. 147 most comprehensively. I wish to comment briefly on Amendment No. 148. Its purpose is to ensure that performance targets, once they have been set and achieved or not achieved, are reported upon in the annual report of the school.

The amendment was brought to the Committee stage in the other place but the Minister was not receptive to the idea. Can the noble Lord say what other convenient means there is of letting parents know about the school's targets and its performance against those targets if annual reports are not used?

I turn to Amendments Nos. 215 and 216. They relate to the ability of the LEAs to obtain the information that they need to fulfil their role. In order for the LEAs to help schools to set performance targets, they need information on the performance of individual pupils from which accurate school information can be constructed. Although LEAs collect and process the data for Key Stage 1 assessment for the DfEE and have always had access to GCSE and GCE results, they have not been given a role in Key Stages 2 and 3 tests and therefore have not had access as a result.

The need for LEAs to have access to results is not disputed. The White Paper, Self-Government for Schools, states:

"The LEA can help schools by analysing and circulating the wide range of information available from national curriculum assessments and tests".

LEAs have an unequivocal right to this information, using the powers in Section 165 of the Education Act. Many LEAs use those powers to obtain information on Key Stages 2 and 3 results. However, it means that each school must supply data to both the LEA and a national data collection agency commissioned by the DfEE to collate Key Stage 2 and 3 tests. It would obviously be easier if the education authority could obtain its information from that data collection agency.

The DfEE claims that Sections 408 and 537 of the Education Act 1966 prevent it asking the four GCSE examination boards or any future data collection agency to pass on data to LEAs. Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 will, it is hoped, remove whatever legal impediment exists to the smooth transfer of data to LEAs and prevent schools having to supply data twice. The efficient supply of this data to LEAs could greatly increase the effectiveness of the LEAs in setting performance targets. I shall be interested to see whether the Minister, on this occasion at least, can accept an approach which strengthens the purpose of the Bill.

Lord Henley: We have consistently made it clear that the schools are the main agents for change. In answer to the first question put by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, "schools" includes special schools. I invite him to look at Clause 36(3)(c), which mentions special schools. Responsibility for driving up standards rests with the schools. We believe that self-government in all its

3 Mar 1997 : Column 1603

various forms--LMS, GM or whatever--has proved to be a success and that schools are capable of rising to that task.

Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 seek to establish a greater role for the LEAs in respect of school targets. I do not believe that that is necessary. It will be open to LEAs to provide information, support and advice to the schools which they maintain, and good LEAs already do that. However, I do not believe that that needs to be mandatory.

Self-Government for Schools set out the role for LEAs to work with their schools in setting targets for improvement. Targets are most effective when they are developed and owned by those who are responsible for achieving them. As I said earlier, that means that each school should decide what its targets should be and what action is needed to achieve them.

The part that LEAs can play is in analysing and circulating performance data to give those schools a sound evidence base for assessing their current performance by assessing themselves against other schools and deciding priorities for improvement. The LEAs can also work with schools in ensuring that they set suitably stretching targets. They will certainly wish to do that as part of their quality assurance work. They can also monitor the setting and meeting of the performance targets.

But we do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to impose extra stages which would slow down the target-setting process and remove responsibility and ownership from the school. That is exactly what Amendment No. 147 would do by requiring governing bodies to consult their LEAs before setting annual school performance targets. That would apply equally to grant-maintained schools.

Amendment No. 146 refers to the LEA's development plan which has been approved by the Secretary of State. I presume that originally that was meant to tie in with Amendment No. 180F, which is no longer part of this group of amendments. We do not accept that it would be helpful to require such plans to be made on a statutory basis, but perhaps that can be dealt with during our discussions on Amendment No. 180F.

Our priority is to foster the internal will and capacity of schools to generate their own improvement. As I have said already, the LEA has a role, but not an exclusive one, and there will be many partners, including parents, TECs and strategic fora, which have an interest in school targets.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, spoke to Amendment No. 148 which would require school targets to be published in a school's annual report to parents as specified in Section 161 and Schedule 17. The annual report is likely to prove the best vehicle for schools to communicate their annual targets to parents. But the appropriate place to specify detailed requirements is in the regulations and not in the Bill. We have committed ourselves already to wide consultation on the detail of those regulations. That consultation will give schools an opportunity to comment on how targets should be

3 Mar 1997 : Column 1604

formulated in parallel with how they and past performance should be published. Other views may come forward. As always, we are reluctant to put on the face of the Bill matters which are dealt with more properly elsewhere.

Amendment No. 149 seeks to give the Secretary of State power in the regulations to require schools to publish a value added indicator of pupils' progress since admission alongside their actual results. Whether or not that is desirable, this proposal is not as yet practicable. Value added comparisons based on progress of pupils against their level of attainment on entry are not yet available at either pupil or school level across the country and across all age groups. But by creating a national framework for assessment, the Government have made it possible for schools to have value added analysis in the future. Obviously, we are not there yet and the data do not yet exist. Therefore, to amend the Bill to require such indicators would delay the establishment of school targets, and I do not believe that the Committee would wish to accept that today.

Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 relate to the collection of school performance data. I accept that that is a complex area. Certain principles are clear, on which, as I understand it, there is a degree of agreement. First, the Secretary of State needs the powers to collect school performance data from governing bodies. That power exists already and I suspect that there is no wish on either side of the Chamber to remove it. The noble Baroness now proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power also to collect individual pupil data and to pass that on as appropriate; for example, to LEAs. That would have a number of important applications in the area of school improvement; for example, in the context of target setting and value added calculations.

I understand the concern of the noble Baroness to ensure that LEAs and others have the necessary data to enable them to pursue vigorously school improvements and other policies. At the same time we must ensure that information in respect of individual pupils does not enter the public domain. I feel that the amendments as they stand would not achieve those ends. Obviously that is no criticism of the noble Baroness as we are discussing a very complex area; indeed, I do not know whether she drafted the amendments herself or whether she had some assistance in such matters. However, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendments on the understanding that I will reflect, with some degree of speed, between now and Report stage on the issue and possibly consider the matter further.

Finally, I return to the suspicions, if I may put it that way, of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who is not normally a suspicious man--indeed, he is normally the most reasonable of men--that the SCAA consultation paper is being held up. I can assure the noble Lord that his suspicions are completely and utterly unfounded. There are some very difficult issues to be resolved on how we compare schools on a like-for-like basis. There is nothing suspicious in that. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw not only his amendments but also, on this occasion, his suspicions.

3 Mar 1997 : Column 1605

9.30 p.m.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I respond to that by saying that, of course, I believe every word the Minister says. However, perhaps I may ask him a few questions which have arisen from what he said so far and which I found to be of great interest. First, am I not correct in thinking that Clause 36 is permissive? The Secretary of State "may" make recommendations requiring targets. Is the Minister now confirming that there will indeed be targets required for all special schools?

Secondly, in response to the Minister's concern about the grouping of the amendments, we ought to put it on the record that the grouping is in fact correct. Indeed, Amendment No. 180F is quite separate. Thirdly, can the Minister say what information or research data have been collected by HMI or Ofsted since 1979 on the correlation between free school meals and test and external examination results in particular schools? Of course, I realise that the Minister is not likely to have the information on figures since 1979 just peeping out of his top pocket. Nevertheless, if that information could be made available, I should be quite happy to receive it by letter. I want to know whether or not poverty is relevant to school achievement. We had given warning that we would raise this issue. My noble friend Lady Farrington said on Second Reading that she would raise the matter, or at least at some other earlier stage of the Bill.

---