| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am in sympathy with one of the things said by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the need to look at the causes of problems which have been with us for such a long time. One thing that the inspectorate perhaps should look at, which is why I am inclined to support the amendment, is the policy of the school with regard to children who might be classified as having special needs, particularly in the behavioural and emotional area. Children who, for various reasons, are incapable of concentrating or of not disrupting other children are put in the ordinary classroom as a matter of government policy. These children may cause other children to behave as badly as they do themselves. It is important for the inspectorate to address whether there is enough support for children who are being included in the mainstream because of the Government's well-intentioned policy. I have had letters from numbers of teachers who say that the policy of inclusion causes immense problems in the area of behaviour in the classroom.
21 Feb 2005 : Column 1044
It would be within the scope of the new relationship between the inspectorate and the schools—which I greatly welcome—to comment on the inclusion policy of the school: whether it is well implemented, or can be made to work, or is too ambitious for the resources of the school. That has an enormous effect on the behaviour of children in school and on the ethos of the school. It is very difficult to manage children who are designated unmanageable in a large school and a large classroom. The inspectorate could comment on that in its inspection.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I had not originally intended to intervene in this debate, because the arguments have been so cogently made and the noble Baroness has just added her weighty voice arguing for the importance of the amendment. However, I was so surprised by the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, against the amendment that I had to intervene.
The noble Lord's argument seemed to be on two counts: first, that the inspectorate should not be told to do something that has previously existed. If we look at the list of things that the chief inspector has a general duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about, we cannot think that any of them are new. The quality of education? I would hope that it had been considering that for some time. Do schools meet the needs of pupils? Do they reach a satisfactory educational standard? What is the quality of their leadership? All of those duties have existed for a long time, and I hope that the inspector will continue to report on such things, which have been and will continue to be important in the provision of education.
The noble Lord's second argument seemed to be that because the Government were doing something about that and spending £250 million it did not matter whether anyone looked to see whether that money was being well spent. Surely to goodness, if we have a huge range of government initiatives, which we all welcome, to do something about misbehaviour and unruly behaviour in schools, it is terribly important that the inspectors ensure that those initiatives are working and that the money is being well spent. Any Secretary of State would want to know that. It is one of the great advantages of having an inspectorate that it can report back to the Secretary of State on the efficacy of the initiatives that she or he has introduced.
So there is no possible argument against including that in the Bill. It is such a major issue of public concern. A few children misbehaving in a class can deny the right to be educated to the rest of that class. I have been in classrooms where two or three children were misbehaving and the educational structure was simply breaking down. The teacher could not get on with her lesson, and the rest of the class could not get on with learning. That is a crucial, central issue, and I hope that, whatever the civil servants have said to Ministers about
21 Feb 2005 : Column 1045
the provision being already there, Ministers will use their own considerable wisdom and say that, yes, that is a good thing to have in the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I re-emphasise what my noble friend just said. I was astonished by the reply that the Minister read out to the previous amendment about self-evaluation. When that is read, it will look pretty peculiar. I am glad that the House has changed that part of the Bill, and I hope that the Government will see fit to leave it thus.
If parents discovered that the Government had said that they did not want to include in the Bill the obligation on the inspector to inform the Secretary of State about behaviour, discipline, and levels of truancy, they would be absolutely astonished. Those are considered to be among the major problems in education. If we are to hear the argument that it is not fair to do that, as I suspect we may, most parents would think it very fair. It is all about how a school is run, the ethos of the school, the leadership of the school and the general atmosphere in which children live in the school. I hope that the Minister will give us a nice, friendly reply and either accept the amendment or at least say that the Government will consider it.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I hope that I always give nice, friendly replies. As noble Lords would expect me to say, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, put his finger on it. Behaviour, discipline and attendance are fundamental to educational attainment and the achievement of the five outcomes. If we thought for a second that we would improve those by one jot by underlining what is already happening, we would do so, but I am afraid that, irrespective of the advice that one receives from civil servants, Ministers should not legislate when they think a provision otiose or that it does not serve the purpose. That would be kidding the House; that would be fooling the House.
Let me make it absolutely clear that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, was gracious enough to acknowledge, you could hardly find an issue higher up the agenda of the new Secretary of State for Education and Skills than this one. She has absolutely cited that behaviour, attendance, the ethos of the school and the discipline of pupils are fundamental to the learning of all pupils and to parental confidence in the education system. She is absolutely right in that respect; that goes to the heart of the matter.
So would the amendment make a difference? The chief inspector has reported on behaviour and attendance in every one of his annual reports since the creation of Ofsted in 1992. If the House feels that in some way he is about to stop doing that, no doubt it will vote for the amendment, but the chief inspectors, present and past, are not foolish. They understand the centrality of the matter, and the Secretary of State wants advice from the chief inspector about how he views the behaviour, attendance and discipline in the schools that he has inspected during the past year. It is central for him to express his responsibilities in that
21 Feb 2005 : Column 1046
way. Whether or not that is in the Bill will not stop or hinder him or make the slightest difference one way or the other.
Why will the chief inspector be so clear on that? He has already made it clear that, as part of the framework for schools under the new inspection arrangements, inspectors will evaluate the behaviour and attendance of learners. No child can learn if he does not attend school or is in a disruptive or rowdy atmosphere. Attendance and behaviour are fundamental to the inspection process. He has therefore made it clear that inspectors will in every school that they inspect consider how behaviour, discipline and attendance affect the extent to which pupils are achieving and the school's contribution to the children's well-being.
Going further than that, we have set out the process of joint area reviews, whereby Ofsted, as the lead inspectorate, will consider the arrangements in a local authority area and see how all the bodies collectively contribute to good outcomes for children. The draft framework for inspection of children's services through joint area reviews, which is currently out for consultation, will explicitly identify where behaviour, discipline and truancy can be captured in relation to the impact on those outcomes. So it will find expression not only through individual school inspections and the annual report of the chief inspector but through the fundamentally important joint area review processes.
Going further, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, acknowledged, we have already tabled our own amendment to ensure that the new teacher development agency will, in securing a well trained workforce, ensure that it is able to promote good behaviour in our schools. Much of that provision will be inspected by Ofsted.
As I said, behaviour and attendance are already a major aspect of what inspectors consider. Reference was made to the Secretary of State's speech on 1 February, to which I shall briefly refer. It would be wrong to believe that the problem is in any respect getting out of control. That does not mean for a second that we do not think that there is an enormous need to have a much stronger push for better behaviour and attendance in our schools. She said in that speech that getting it right meant making it clear that there were clear boundaries and that crossing them would lead to consequences.
First, local authority directors will review schools where behaviour is rated unsatisfactory by Ofsted. Secondly, Ofsted will follow up visits to every school where behaviour is rated as unsatisfactory within 12 months to check on progress and ensure that improvement is under way. Thirdly, there will be a new drive by local authorities to use parenting orders to enforce parents' responsibility to enforce discipline and attendance at school. Fourthly, schools will pool their experience in new foundation partnerships, with resources devolved to their control to enable them to buy support to remove disruptive pupils from classrooms and nip their bad behaviour in the bud.
21 Feb 2005 : Column 1047
A key element of the package of changes relevant to this Bill is that the chief inspector has agreed to revisit those schools where behaviour has been judged unsatisfactory. So the inspection process will reinforce it.
On attendance, inspectors are directed through the guidance to look at pupils' levels of attendance and the efforts schools are making to ensure it. It is therefore self-evident that inspectors must consider school attendance as part of their inspection.
I will say a few words on Wales. The amendment refers to an explicit duty on the chief inspector to inform the Assembly. The Assembly already recognises the difficulties faced by teachers and staff dealing with disruptive pupils and is committed to improving attendance. The fall in absenteeism in Wales in 2003, for the third consecutive year, is encouraging. For this very reason, in meeting the requirements of Clause 19 to keep the Assembly informed about,
the chief inspector gives specific attention to these areas. To reflect and discharge this duty the new common inspection framework introduced in Wales from September 2004 makes explicit reference to behaviour, discipline and attendance. With specific reference to such developments, inspectors will be required to assess how well learners achieve and to include judgments on how pupils behave, on how they achieve high levels of attendance and on their motivation. Estyn requires inspectors in every instance to evaluate and report on standards of behaviour from direct observation.
I could not make it clearer how strongly the Government believe that improving behaviour, attendance and discipline in schools is in the interests of children. It is in the interest of parents who want their children to have good outcomes. Fundamental will be getting parents to work with schools in recognising that they have a role to play in supporting discipline and learning in schools, and the schools to support those parents in doing so. I have signalled some of the measures that we will be taking to drive this forward powerfully. Our commitment could not be stronger. We do not want to fool the public into thinking that putting the words into the Bill will make any difference one way or the other. We will drive these changes, not through this measure but through the other measures that I have signalled. Our commitment and the chief inspector's commitment to this could not be stronger.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |