| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject that; I do not accept that there is a hidden premium for grant-maintained schools in the provision. The circumstances in which the
funding agency would offer support will be akin to the targeted additional support from which LEAs experiencing serious difficulties already benefit--from responsible LEAs--when they need it. These are difficult cases which fully justify the input of targeted public resources at an early stage to avert more serious or costly later problems. For that reason, I believe that they are a quite proper and appropriate use of public funds. I do not accept that there is a hidden advantage for GM schools. For that reason, I am not able to accept the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he tell the House exactly which advice, support or services are available to GM schools without payment from the FAS, or are provided by another body through the FAS, which are similarly able to be provided by the local education authority?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as a member of an LEA, although I understand that she will shortly be standing down from that position, the noble Baroness knows exactly what services the LEAs can provide to their schools. Similarly, it will be open, as the amendment sets out, for the FAS to provide support to the schools. However, as subsection (4) makes clear, "assistance",
- "does not include financial assistance".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister's reply. I noticed that he did not answer the question I posed; namely, which service could be provided free without being removed from the budgets available for the schools. I am disappointed in his response. It is further evidence that the Government are embarking this evening upon what might be called a rather vain "last ditch attempt" to lure people into GM-nationalised status with carrots that are thinly disguised, denied when they are shown in public and which, at the end of the day, have no effect on the overwhelming majority of schools. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Extension of assisted places scheme to schools providing only primary education]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 33:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would require schools participating in the assisted places scheme to go through inspections in which their reports
The Minister went on to list 14 schools in respect of which reports had been published out of a total of 294 APS schools which were visited by Ofsted over the past five years.
The issue behind the amendment is quite simple and straightforward: if schools are receiving public money for the education of children, they should be accountable to parents and the wider community through the publication of inspection reports in the same way as any other maintained school. The figures in the Minister's letter are quite damning. Less than 5 per cent. of the "visits" undertaken by Ofsted inspectors resulted in a full published report. This means that parents participating in the APS scheme are receiving a less satisfactory standard of inspection and accountability than those whose children are in maintained schools. They do not know this. However, it is the truth.
The full picture may be even worse than the figures suggest because the list of schools quoted by the Minister includes some of the greatest names; indeed, some of the top public schools in this country. The inspection reports which would be of the greatest interest would be those from the small schools, the schools which rely on the assisted places scheme to keep them solvent and afloat.
With the publication of the primary league tables last week, another reason for the amendment is not far to seek. Parents may now refer to standards reached in key areas in all primary schools except those schools in the independent sector, and including those preparatory schools which, under the Bill, will be brought into the APS scheme.
The second part of the amendment requires measures to be put in place to protect the physical and moral well being of pupils. We believe that independent schools should co-operate with the measures which the DfEE put in place for protecting children from teachers who may constitute a danger to them. The Minister should accept that, if public money is to be spent in the independent sector, the standards of provision routinely to be found in the public sector, and insisted upon for the public sector, should be extended to the independent sector as well. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendment. We are dealing with an important point. We are extending safeguards to pupils whose education is taken on by the state through a private provider, giving those pupils the same protection as is provided in a state school.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, suggested, in dealing with small public schools one goes from the comic Decline and Fall style of bad educational practice and the snobbery of going to a public school because it sounds so much better to have been educated there to the straightforward fact that public schools are places where physical and sexual abuse have occurred. Ultimately that is a danger that we cannot overlook. The amendment, or some provision like it, will give that extra guarantee. It is an issue that we must address. I hope that the Minister will give a favourable response.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, are--dare I say it?--as usual pretty ridiculous. Those are matters which can be dealt with by the Children Act, or whatever.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. As regards my right honourable friend's role, she has responsibilities in relation to all independent schools. They require her to be satisfied that they meet certain standards in terms of premises, accommodations, curriculum and instruction, and the welfare of pupils in boarding establishments. Ofsted's regime of inspections in the independent sector is concerned mainly with the monitoring of educational provision. Ofsted undertakes monitoring inspections to ensure that minimum standards are being maintained. Those inspections do not themselves lead to published reports, but the findings are passed to the department so that any necessary action can be taken. Ofsted also undertakes reporting inspections which, as for maintained schools, lead to a published report.
As I explained to the noble Lord in my letter of 6th March from which he quoted, of the 355 schools currently participating in the scheme, some 294 have had monitoring inspection visits by Ofsted in the past five years. Fourteen had reporting inspections which led to published reports. In addition, monitoring of assisted places scheme schools' performance is also carried out on an annual basis through examination results and audit surveys and through analysis of their statistical returns.
I believe that these amount to a monitoring regime that is appropriate to the nature of the assisted places scheme and the status of these schools as independent institutions. They are independent even though some of their pupils come from the assisted places scheme. Therefore I believe that the regime, as we have set out, is appropriate. I would not wish to go down the line proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Addington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he not agree that, as regards a pupil in a boarding school, the danger of someone in a position of power abusing that power exists? Would some provision such as proposed in the amendment be a safeguard against that danger?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the same applies precisely in those boarding schools in the maintained sector, of which there are some 40 in this country, as the noble Lord will know.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I was mildly surprised at the Minister's reply. He began by
However, what has emerged from his reply is that this constituency of APS schools is without doubt and beyond question very lightly and gently inspected in so far as they are inspected at all. That kind of inspection, plus the inspection of examination results, which anybody can do, are in our view simply not sufficiently rigorous, and far more rigour is required in the type of inspection that they should be given in the light of the fact that they receive considerable amounts of public money and, if the Government had their way, would be receiving very much more in the future were the Government so fortunate as to be returned to office. However, at this stage of the evening there is no point in our pursuing a matter on which we are simply not going to agree and on which the Minister is not going to move. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 18, line 7, leave out from ("education)") to end of line 8 and insert ("after the words "providing secondary education" there shall be inserted--
"in respect of which--
(a) inspections are undertaken in accordance with the School Inspections Act 1996 and reports are published by the school; and
(b) measures as to the protection of the physical and moral well-being of pupils are undertaken in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State,
and"").
"certain reports known as Full Inspection Reports (FIRs) are published at the discretion of the Secretary of State and as such are freely available to members of the public".
9.15 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page