Education and Inspections Bill

My Lords, I welcomed the White Paper in October when we had a brief debate on it because I saw a very strong commitment to reducing our collective failure to meet the needs of so many of our young people. It is a scandal how we have failed them. Our strong commitment is to meeting the needs of every child, and to that end offering more curriculum options and continuing the powers to innovate. I was excited by it. I welcome the Bill. I have some experience as a governor of two Church schools and of working something analogous to a trust school with the local authority. That was very constructive and creative. It is possible for me to be excited about the concept of a local authority acting as commissioner and champion, for not only parents but pupils, and not getting bogged down in the detail but concentrating on the key issue for the nation of improving our schools’ performance and the life chances of all our children. I say that subject to two provisos—first, that the local authority has access to the information it needs to do the job well, and secondly, that it has powers to achieve these objectives. That issue may arise in Committee. Still on Part 1, I welcome the power of the local authority to blow the whistle when it considers that a proposed trust would be inappropriate. I like there being a power, even when the trust has appointed the majority of the governing body, for one-third of the governing body to be able to say, ““No, it is not working. There must be change””. But I regret—I can understand the reasons why it has been done—that that change can take place only after seven years. It will become apparent long before then if it has been a mistake, and there will be some mistakes. Remedies should be possible. I believe that there should be school improvement partners, but as partners and not as ““I have come to help you”” threats. That leads me to say that if it is clear that the relationship between the head and the improvement partner has broken down, and if the governing body cannot persuade the local authority that makes the appointment to change it—I hope it would—it should have some power of appeal to the adjudicator for there to be a change, because it must be a partnership. Conversely, I would like the local authority to have power, if power is needed, to say to a school, ““Look, the normal five days—two days researching and three days on the job—is not enough for you. You’re in trouble. You need all the partnership help you can get””. On the other hand, if a school is doing well and is well regarded, some smaller partnership help would be appropriate. I had intended to talk on consultation, which is there for parents, but I was concerned that I did not see consultation with pupils in the Bill, especially in secondary schools and with the schools council—and if there is not one, there jolly well ought to be. However, what the Minister said in his introductory speech gave me to understand that he has anticipated that, but we can clarify that later. In Part 4—I am picking up on a point made, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey—we have a proposal that there be a good deal of freedom of parental choice and expansion of schools. There are community dimensions that must be taken into account, an issue also mentioned by the noble Baroness. The well-being of communities, particularly in areas of social deprivation, is so important. If a school in such a community has failed, the local authority should seek—and have strong guidance to so seek—that the replacement school be either on the site of the existing one or still in the community. I would hate to see the attrition of the role of a school in such an area of deprivation reaching a point where there is nothing for it but to close. I would like the local authority to use its powers to intervene, moderate those forces and ensure the survival of such a school. The Government recognise the importance of communities. We have great community problems in some parts of our country, especially in areas such as those I have referred to, which can become deserts. The Government are extending the school day and are proposing expansion of recreational facilities. They have thought in terms of social services being linked to schools. In other words, schools can be, even more than has been possible in the past, centres of the community. I think that they should be cherished as such and safeguarded in these particular areas. I do not argue for other areas. I mention in parenthesis that the Government attach much importance to the involvement of parents and parental choice and power. Parents in areas of social deprivation are not likely to involve themselves, stand up before a lot of middle-class parents in school and pitch for their kids in the same way as they would among their neighbours in their community school. From that point—parental involvement—schools should be safeguarded. The role of the local authority is to see that schools improve and come up to a good standard—an excellent standard should be the objective. I want to talk briefly about the curriculum. I welcome what is proposed, what is intended and what will happen about vocational diplomas, but I regret to see that, as I understand it, there will not be a mandatory entitlement across the country until 2013. I have read the interim report by the noble Lord, Lord Leitch. We are in desperate trouble in this area. As the chair of the curriculum authority, I said, ““For God’s sake, don’t rush it and mess it up””. But we have to do better than 2013. The part of the Bill on the curriculum provides for work-related learning for 14 to 16 year-olds. That is absolutely right. But is the Minister aware that the Learning and Skills Council has reduced its funding for such work experience from £10 million per year to £0 per year in two years? I urge the Minister quickly—I am not asking for a response today—to look into the implications for the provision of this. I declare an interest: I am a sponsor of one such body called Trident, which is the biggest of its kind in the country. Reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, to the baccalaureate. I once wrote a report to a certain noble Baroness sitting on the Conservative Benches in, I think, 1997 about GCSEs and A-levels, recommending something that I used to call to all my friends my non-baccalaureate, because at that time I did not think I had a chance of it getting through under that heading. Perhaps things have changed. However, I would not make it the only option. It is not right for all our young people, but for some it is the way to go. Perhaps the international baccalaureate needs to come more strongly into the reckoning than it has. We will see. I move on to exclusions. The report we had from the Steer group showed that children with special education needs were four times more likely to be excluded than the generality of children, and those with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties are particularly likely to be excluded. It is our job to respond to the needs of those kids before they reach the stage of being excluded. It is desperately important. You do not have to wait until they are teenagers; you can spot it when they are little ones. I would like to make three proposals. The first picks up on a point made in Committee in another place by Mrs Davies. Money for children with special educational needs should be velcroed on to them and the local authority should make jolly well sure that it is spent on them. The second proposal is that the persons responsible for statementing a child should have no connection with funding. I strongly believe that local authorities have been influenced in their decisions by a lack of resources. Thirdly, all partnerships should have a strong pupil referral unit to which children can be referred early where their problems are stressed and dealt with. Referral units should be centres for professional development for teachers in the partnership, so that they have a better understanding of how to deal with those children. Perhaps that is my ration for tonight. I end with one point, which is that I welcome the Bill’s provision on innovation. I have learnt of so much in which the department’s innovation unit is well spoken of. We need innovation to meet the needs of every child; it should be encouraged. I therefore ask the Government to ensure that every school knows about this legislative provision, and of the department’s innovation unit and how it can help. I was twice encouraged by bishops to say something about faith schools. I must be very brief, because my time is up. The only reason that the group that I chaired recommended an expansion of the number of faith schools was in response to parental demand. We said that that must always be done in partnership and agreement with the local authority. I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate when he said that faith schools must be distinctive but very inclusive. My opening words when the White Paper was published was that it was our duty to teachers and pupils to reach a consensus on the way forward, because we do them great hurt if we are always mucking them about. We must serve them well by providing a way forward.