Education and Inspections Bill

I rise to speak to Amendment No. 144, regarding the use of home school agreements and admissions, and to AmendmentNo. 146. I also give notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 38, regarding the admissions code, stand part of the Bill. I will also speak to Amendment No. 169, regarding interviews allowed for children over compulsory school age and Amendments Nos. 176 to 178, regarding banding. Amendment No. 144 introduces home-school contracts as part of the admissions code. It offers an incentive and a positive relationship between the family and the school from the outset of a child’s education. We agree with the Government’s sentiments outlined in the White Paper regarding the reinforcement of parental responsibility for discipline. At Second Reading, I voiced my concerns about parenting orders. They are reactive measures to poor discipline, offering little more than enforcement, and they fail to create overall results. The child impact statement issued by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children points out: "““The extension of parenting orders raises questions about due process in terms of resorting to enforcement measures where no offence has been committed””." Ultimately, this measure is counterproductive and creates a barrier between parent and school. A constructive approach is required. By introducing a contract at the start of a child’s education, schools and parents will work in a constructive partnership by actively practising an ethos of discipline. Agreeing to an informal contract between school and home, both teachers and parents send a message to children that behaviour in the home and at school are considered to be of the same or similar importance, with the same or similar acceptable standards expected. This amendment is not intended to be a mechanism to enable teachers to tell parents how to parent and it will not enable parents to tell teachers how to use discipline. It is a simple agreement between parents and schools intended to ensure that they both have an effective tool to help them to tackle serious problems of truancy and attendance, and discipline in the classroom. I turn to Amendment No. 146 and the Question whether Clause 38 should stand part of the Bill. These concern the admissions code. Amendment No. 146 would ensure that the code for school admissions would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it could come into force. That reflects the change in the nature of the new code for school admissions compared to its predecessor, the code of practice for school admissions. The code of practice is made under Section 94 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which Clause 38 amends. It required bodies and persons exercising functions under that chapter of the 1998 Act only, "““to have regard to any relevant provisions of the code””." The new code is far more prescriptive. As envisaged under Clause 38, the code for school admissions will, "““impose requirements, and may include guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters””," rather than the less constricting Clause 84(2) of the old arrangement whereby: "““The code may include guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters in relation to the discharge of their functions under this Chapter by local education authorities and such governing bodies””." Bodies and persons exercising functions under the relevant chapter of the 1998 Act will be expected to ““act in accordance”” with the code rather than ““have regard to it””. The skeleton admissions code makes clear at paragraph 2 that it, "““sets out statutory (i.e. imposed by primary or secondary legislation) and other mandatory requirements imposed by this Code””." According to that paragraph, chapter 1 of the skeleton code sets out, "““admission practices and oversubscription criteria that must not be used in the allocation of school places and provides guidelines and requirements for fair admission arrangements””." It is clear that this code is much stronger than the one made under existing legislation. It is also clear that the change in the status of the code was made to win the support of various rebel groups within the Labour Party. It was not a proposal contained within the White Paper. Paragraph 3.22 on page 46 of the White Paper states: "““No one approach towards admissions will work in all circumstances. This is why we want to ensure that all self-governing schools … are free to use the approach to fair admissions that they think will best meet their local circumstances, as long as it is compatible with the Admissions Code””." The public face of government was consistent with the White Paper. All radio, television and newspaper interviews given by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State between the publication of the White Paper in October 2005 and the concession letter of 6 February this year categorically ruled out the code of practice having any more statutory compulsion than it had already. On 24 November, the Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, said in another place that: "““The code is established on a statutory basis, but there is discretion and flexibility in it to adapt admissions to meet the specific ends of a school and the pupils in the area””." Asked by the then shadow Education Secretary, David Cameron, if she would rule out making the code of practice a statutory code, the Secretary of State replied: "““I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the code achieves its ends of ruling out selection by ability on its current statutory basis. He is confused—the code already operates on a statutory basis. Schools take it into account, and then the adjudicator, which is also statutory, can use its discretion to say whether the school has interpreted it correctly. Interpretation of the code, however, is very important for schools that want to create their own distinctive ethos””.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/05;col. 1644.]" That was said by the then Secretary of State for Education. The Prime Minister said at his press conference on 23 January: "““I can’t agree, for the reasons we have given on many occasions, that this code becomes statutory””." The Government retreated in their 6 February letter to the Education and Skills Committee in which the then Minister said: "““As you know it has always been our intention that the Code of Practice on admissions should have real force””." The wording in Mr Justice Jackson’s judgment in the London Oratory School case, which involved the governing body of that school and the schools adjudicator, shows how prescriptive the code can be. He said: "““Let me first consider the statutory effect of the Code. Section 84(3) of the 1998 Act imposes an obligation, first on the Governors of the Oratory School and then on the Adjudicator ‘to have regard to any relevant provisions of the Code’. The phrase ‘to have regard to’ means to take into account. It does not connote slavish obedience or deference on every occasion””," which I suspect could reflect the new provisions. The code could evidently be incredibly restrictive. Indeed, the Bill’s powers could be used to impose a single admissions criterion across the country. That is why we feel that if there must be a strengthened code, accompanying it should be a high level of parliamentary control embodied in the affirmative resolution procedure. However, our preferred solution would be to remove Clause 38 altogether. It is unnecessary. First, to impose the code with that additional strength requires us to anticipate all the varied decisions in which a school might find itself. We need to ensure that schools have sufficient flexibility to respond to local needs when setting up their arrangements. In relation to guidance for Clause 3 the Minister in another place stated: "““When we are recommending good practice, it goes into guidance and it is for local bodies to take it into account sensibly in their local situations.””—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 30/3/06; cols. 152-153.]" Why should schools not have the power to tailor their admissions arrangements to local circumstances? I suspect that the furore surrounding admissions reflects a left-wing preoccupation with admissions rather than with standards. The Government rationale for the alteration has not been consistent. The letter of6 February to the Education and Skills Select Committee stated that the change was prompted by ““recent legal judgments”” that, "““may have weakened the perceived force of the Code””." But that legal judgment had occurred before the publication of the White Paper. In fact, the London Oratory School case was decided in December 2004, some 10 months before the publication of the White Paper. Had the Government truly intended to strengthen the code, they had months in which to make their intentions clear. The fact that they did so only when threatened with a rebellion inside their own party is extremely telling. The words in the White Paper belie the Government’s real stance: "““We recognise that no form of admissions arrangements can increase the number of places at an oversubscribed school. This is why we are continuing to increase the number of good schools and the number of places in good schools””." Our preoccupation should be with the creation of more good school places, not the shifting of one set of children out of a good school and replacing them with another. That merely substitutes one injustice with another. The disparity in our education system is caused by a lack of good school places, not in the fact that one school might have slightly different admissions policies. I turn to the skeleton code. It is a pity that we were not presented with a more detailed example. However, we are satisfied that it goes no further than the draft code that was withdrawn last year. The code recognises that first preference first is poor practice. That is welcome, as first preference first schemes often lead to parents choosing schools tactically rather than on the basis of genuine preference, particularly where there are grammar schools in an area. If specialist schools decide to select 10 per cent of their intake by aptitude, it will be even more important that the decision is taken on the basis of the fairer equal preferences system. I have concerns with some aspects of the code. It continues to outlaw making admission conditional on signing a home school contract, an issue on which I hope to speak later. I am concerned also about the less technical wording of the part of the skeleton code concerning social fairness. The code states at paragraph 1.27: "““Admission authorities should analyse information about their intakes, and where possible their applicants, to find out whether they attract a wide range of families or whether their school fails to attract all sections of local communities””." I should like the Minister to reassure me that that will not impose a bureaucratic burden on schools. It is important that schools do not discriminate in their admissions on irrelevant grounds. However, since schools are legally forbidden from selecting on the basis of social background or income, there is a risk that schools might make great efforts to ensure a fair intake without any assurance that they will be successful. I am grateful to have been able to place these matters on record. Our amendment would ensure that the new code of admissions was subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We on these Benches consider that to be a necessary process for ensuring that schools are not subject to undue burdens. I turn to Amendments Nos. 176, 177 and 178 on banding. I will return briefly to an issue raised by my honourable friend Nick Gibb MP in another place. I will not go into it again in great detail as I hope that having returned with a slightly altered amendment the Government will be minded to accept this one in your Lordships' House, having been sympathetic to the principle in another place. I set out the position from these Benches at Second Reading. I firmly believe that banding is nothing more than streaming outside the school gates. I believe that in its purest form it leads to social engineering and can seriously fetter parents’ choice of schools. As such, it goes in principle against the driving forces of this Bill. However, that is the principle of banding in its purest form. While in principle it poses serious problems, in practice it can be shown to work. CTCs, especially the Thomas Telford school, benefit hugely from using banding in conjunction and, as such, I would not wish to fetter the choice of schools to use banding as a method of selection. These amendments make it necessary for local education authorities that are admission authorities to get the consent of governing bodies when introducing all forms of banding. As currently drafted, Clause 49 provides for governing body consent only to the new form of banding that is introduced by new Section 101(1A) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Amendment No. 176 is a technical amendment that ensures that banding can be introduced only with the consent of governing bodies when they are not their own admissions authorities. Amendment No. 177 is a clarificatory amendment to ensure that consent to banding is necessary only when first introduced rather than every year that the admission arrangements are determined. I beg to move.