Education and Inspections Bill

moved Amendment No. 12: Page 2, line 12, at end insert- ““( ) encouraging all schools to become foundation, voluntary or foundation special schools, and to acquire a foundation”” The noble Baroness said: I wish we could continue in that vein but fear that we will not. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 122 and 123. Amendment No. 12 would require local authorities to exercise their functions with a view to encouraging all schools to become self-governing and to acquire a trust. Amendment No. 123 would place this duty on local authorities and the Secretary of State. This builds directly on the wording of the White Paper which committed the Government to that at paragraph 2.5. It states: "““At the heart of this new vision are Trust schools. Trusts will harness the external support and a success culture, bringing innovative and stronger leadership to the school, improving standards and extending choice. We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a Trust””." These amendments reflect the vision of the education system expressed by the Prime Minister and Ministers over the past few years. In his speech of 24 October, the day before publication of the White Paper, the Prime Minister said: "““We need to see every local authority moving from provider to commissioner, so that the system acquires a local dynamism responsive to the needs of their communities and open to change and new forms of school provision.""This will liberate local authorities from too often feeling the need to defend the status quo, so that instead they become the champions of innovation and diversity, and the partner of local parents in driving continuous improvement””." This was not a new aspiration; indeed, it was the basis for DfES policy from as early as July 2004, when the Government published the five-year strategy for children and learners, which said: "““Local Authorities should recast themselves as the commissioner and quality assurer of educational services, not the direct supplier, a role which enables them to promote the interests of parents and pupils far more confidently and powerfully than the old days of the Local Authority as direct manager of the local schools and colleges””." It was repeated in the 2005 Labour manifesto, which said: "““We want all secondary schools to be independent specialist schools””." The policy came to full fruition in the White Paper, paragraph 9.3 of which states: "““We will support local authorities in playing a new commissioning role in relation to a new school system, at the heart of their local communities, and responsive to the needs of parents and pupils. They will support new schools and new provision where there is a real demand or where existing provision is poor. This is a very different role from acting as a direct provider of school places. We recognise that in many ways it is more challenging. But it also offers the scope to ensure that communities receive the education they deserve and aspire to””." One could argue that the drive towards the new strategic role of local authorities goes even further back than that. After all, the 1992 Labour manifesto stated: "““We will reform the Conservatives' scheme for the local management of schools. All schools will be free to manage their day-to-day budgets, with local education authorities given a new strategic role””." Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, now wishes that he had not made that commitment, but the present Government have taken it to its logical conclusion. The Prime Minister stated in the foreword to the White Paper: "““Our aim is the creation of a system of independent, non-fee paying state schools””." Our amendment would place this commitment into statute. We seek reassurances that the dilution of the proposals since the publication of the White Paper does not signal a desire by Government to abandon the trust school model and the independence that it brings. We feel that placing a target duty in legislation will ensure that decision makers bring about the creation of the system of independent, non-fee paying state schools to which the Prime Minister is committed. This is not to say that there have not been encouraging signs from the Government. We are particularly excited by the new role of the schools commissioner. The role of the schools commissioner is, according to the advertisement for that position to, "““champion Trust schools within the context of the reforms set out in the Higher Standards, Better Schools for All White Paper””." The candidate briefing pack for the role stated: "““As the Schools Commissioner you will champion Trusts and Academies and advise the Secretary of State on the use of her powers””." The pack also lists functions of the schools commissioner. These also point to a strong duty to encourage the development of trusts and academies. For instance, the schools commissioner will be expected to: "““Champion Trust schools and Academies as key levers in raising standards, particularly in deprived areas…Identify suitable potential partners for Trusts and academies and facilitate the matching up of schools with partners and sponsors, particularly supporting schools in disadvantaged areas…Work with business foundations, educational charities, schools, local authorities and other partners to help identify the right solutions””." Final-round interviews were supposed to take place at the end of June, so I would be interested to know when the appointment of the schools commissioner will be announced. The description of the role is extremely encouraging. However, we feel that the move towards the system of independent state schools would be strengthened all the more if we placed an explicit duty on local authorities and the Secretary if State to encourage its development. Such a duty would be perfectly complemented by our amendments on community schools, which we shall come on to later today. Finally, I would like to address the new clauses that I have tabled after Clause 32, Amendment No. 123. The first of these would define ““self-governing school”” and ““Trust school””. While the Department for Education and Skills refers to the proposed, "““foundation school with a foundation””," as a trust school, as evidenced by documents such as What Trust Schools Offer, the phrase does not appear once in primary legislation. I am sure that there are reasons for this. I suspect that it may have partly been due to a desire to downplay the radical nature of the schools by disguising it as an already existing category. But it is evident that the new trust schools are more than just foundation schools. As the Prime Minister said on 9 February: "““Trust schools bring together the freedoms of foundations with the governance of voluntary-aided schools harnessing the investment of external partners we have already seen with specialist schools and academies””." The radical difference between trust schools and foundation schools can also be seen from the models suggested by the Government; for example, the What Trust Schools Offer document gives the examples of a group of local schools working with a trust and a group of schools spread throughout the country working with a single trust. The potential for the development of national chains of schools run by business or charitable foundations is quite unlike anything that takes place at the moment. We feel that the proposed trust school deserves recognition in law beyond the description of, "““foundation school with a foundation””." Our amendment also states that, "““A foundation, voluntary aided of foundation special school shall be known as a self-governing school””." The distinction between community schools and self-governing schools is essential to the rationale for this Bill. The ability to govern themselves and set their own ethos is one of the main reasons why voluntary-aided and foundation schools flourish. We feel that placing the term ““self-governing”” into the Bill would demonstrate a stronger commitment to the vision of a system of independent state schools than at present exists. I beg to move.