Education and Inspections Bill

moved Amendment No. 28: Page 3, line 22, leave out from beginning to first ““a”” in line 23 and insert ““The governing body of a maintained school must appoint”” The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 28, 30, 32, 34 and 43 and to Amendment No. 33, which concerns a slightly separate point on SIPs. It is unfortunate that this group of amendments was degrouped. I am concerned not so much about the time taken in debate as about the fact that the debate becomes a little disjointed. One wonders whether to jump up or not. I hope that we might think about regrouping in some instances as we go through the amendments so that there is a more joined-up debate. I will certainly take that on board. This cluster of amendments would maintain the role of school improvement partners—like the noble Baroness, I shall refer to them as SIPs—but alter the direction to ensure that they would be part of a school’s own management team, rather than imposed by an outside authority. Amendment No. 28 would change the appointments procedure, putting the appointment of a school improvement partner in the hands of the governing body. The main reason for giving appointment of SIPs to the governing body will be clear to the Committee and the Minister. I remain convinced—as I and my noble friends were at Second Reading—that the schools themselves are the experts on schools. In other words, we would take the issue much further than the Liberal Democrats would. We believe that the schools and the governing body should have this role; even though the local authorities might, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, know the local scene, that is not enough. However, the amendment would leave the funding of SIPs to the local authority. This would ensure that, while a SIP was approved by the governing body as a matter of government policy, the school would not be expected to pay for a role that, while potentially very useful, is not a teaching or welfare role. The Minister’s words in another place seemed to support the concept that schools should have a strong voice in the appointment of school improvement partners. Jacqui Smith stated: "““The final determination of support for a school is for the school itself … Its choices should not be restricted to people appointed by the local authority that maintains it””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 30/3/06; col. 173.]" However, the regulatory impact assessment takes a slightly different line. On page 54, it states that SIPs could, "““enable Ministers to enforce the implementation of the SIP function in accordance with their policies””." It goes on to say that legislation is, "““not required for the activity””," of SIPs, "““to take place, but to enforce it if it does not, or if it takes place in a way that does not meet Ministers’ policies””." The disparity in those statements concerns me. SIPs are just that—they are there to work with the governing body of a school to improve its status. They are not called policy commissioners, but the regulatory impact assessment description suggests that that may be the case. What is more, if they are there to ensure that government policy is followed to the nth degree, I do not see why schools should bear the burden of cost. The regulatory impact assessment states that the Government expect the whole SIP project from April 2008 to cost around £28 million, as we have heard—I assume that that does not account for inflation—but that the Department for Education and Skills expects to contribute only £21 million, subject to the outcome of the next spending review. Does that mean that schools are expected to pay an extra £7 million for what I suspect may be a form of full-time inspector? We have heard that the measure is no such thing and involves only 19 days, but we might want to pursue that matter a little further. It is vital to get the right people to do the job—as the Minister has said, the SIPs need to be credible—not just local authority employees instructed to keep an eye on schools, which has posed a problem in the past and would pose more problems, according to the regulatory impact assessment. I am pleased that there will be formal training for the role, but I am concerned at the extra cost of that training. It is interesting to note the high percentage of former and serving head teachers who have responded to advertisements to work as SIPs. I take on board very much what Members of the Committee have suggested—that head teachers, possibly more than any others, have much to contribute to that role. As I say, it is interesting to note the number of serving head teachers who have responded to such advertisements. However, I question whether a serving head teacher, who is probably crucially tied up with that important role, is able to provide an extra 17 or so days a year. I presume that those 17 days would on the whole be best served during term time. Therefore, I can see a conflict in terms of time. I am mindful of the fact that out of those people of working age who are qualified to teach, more are not currently teaching than are. The challenge to raise standards in education has many sides. There have been some fantastic teaching initiatives, not least the Teach First scheme. I congratulate the Government on that scheme, which we thoroughly support. But more needs to be done to encourage and sustain a steady stream of people into teaching. I worry that while the role of a SIP will provide an avenue for people who are passionate about education to play a part in its improvement, it might create a diversion from the teaching roles that we so desperately need those people to take on and retain. I have suggested the concept of secondment to the Minister in relation to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, and I wonder whether he would also consider secondment in this context. Amendments Nos. 32 and 43 extend that logic. Their effect would be that only those schools that require significant improvement or fall under special measures under Clause 54 would be compelled to have a SIP. I was surprised to see that SIPs would be compulsory for all schools, given that in the White Paper, SIPS are dealt with under a section entitled, "““Tackling Coasting Schools and Coasting Departments””." As my honourable friend John Hayes has mentioned in another place, while the added value measurement has its problems, it enables us to identify coasting schools. The White Paper rightly points out that, "““the challenge is to secure continuous improvement””." No one could argue with that. But it is not quite clear to me why it is absolutely necessary, given the costs of training and remuneration involved, not to mention the other collateral costs of SIPs, to implement them in every school. The amendments seek to ensure that SIPs would be an elite body for improvement and that the very best candidates would be chosen to ensure continued progress in our schools. My amendments, to ensure that only failing and coasting schools would benefit from their role, have as much to do with wise economics as with an objection to policy. We must ensure that where education is concerned, an effective, carefully thought-out route is chosen, which stands to benefit our schools the most and which makes the best of limited resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned that there might be a figure of £1,000 per SIP. We need to attract the very best; and the very best will command a higher income to take them away from their other role. I ask these questions out of genuine concern for the role of SIPs. I accept that they could prove to be a useful ingredient in the new drive to improve school standards, which is key. They could be invaluable to schools that are valiantly struggling to improve but need extra support. I pay tribute to those schools and to the head teachers, teachers and governors in them who do excellent work while making progress. I hope that the amendments will go some way to ensuring that those who need the most focused support will get it, and those who are in no need do not prove an unwilling drain on resources. Amendment No. 33 would ensure that school improvement partners accept the religious basis of a denominational school. It is a probing amendment that reflects concerns expressed by groups representing such schools, particularly the Catholic Education Service, that the school improvement partner might threaten the schools’ distinctive character and ethos. That concern is reflected in the summer newsletter sent to school governors by the Diocese of Portsmouth department of education. A common question asked of education officers and listed in the newsletter is: "““Is our governing body right to be concerned about the forthcoming appointment of a school improvement partner who may have little understanding of what we are trying to achieve as a Catholic school?””." The answer given by the newsletter is: "““In short, yes … Ideally, School Improvement Partners should have recent leadership experience in the Catholic voluntary aided sector. At the very least they should be fully aware of the legal differences between voluntary aided schools and other maintained schools and they should be sympathetic to the Catholic ethos and understand how it can be developed and strengthened. The CES continues to discuss these issues with officials””." That could extend to all kinds of other voluntary aided schools. It is very important that the development of school improvement partners does not lead voluntary aided schools to feel under threat. That is particularly important when one considers the vital role that such schools play in providing a high-quality education for many of the most vulnerable children. For example, in voluntary aided schools where 33 per cent of pupils are on free school meals, an average of all pupils shows that 47.6 per cent achieve five or more A star to C-grade GCSEs, rather than the 40.6 per cent in other schools. Overall, 23.7 per cent of pupils with free school meals at voluntary aided schools achieve five or more A star to C grades, including English and mathematics, compared to 16.3 per cent at community schools. Similarly, the proportion of pupils with special educational needs achieving five or more good GCSES is 10.4 per cent in voluntary aided schools. That is a commendable record. The record of voluntary aided schools is beaten in these areas only by city technology colleges. It is perhaps for that reasons that so many parents, even non-religious parents, are so keen to put their children into voluntary aided faith schools. It is important that the school improvement partner appreciates the reason for these successes, as that would place him in a far stronger position to make constructive criticisms of the school’s approach. It is also important that SIPs have the confidence of parents and of the religious bodies that support faith schools. I encourage the Minister to consider our amendments as a means of achieving that. I beg to move.