Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, I am delighted to respond to this short debate. Amendment 221 removes the duty for schools to be part of behaviour and attendance partnerships. Amendments 218 to 220 remove the requirement for behaviour partnerships to report annually to their children’s trust board. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Low. I am sorry that he has caught the late shift again, but I am delighted that he is here. We have talked about the Secretary of State reaching into Ofqual. I see behaviour partnerships being able to reach into children’s trusts. Schools want to work together to improve the commissioning of support services to improve behaviour, particularly for children with special educational needs. The reach in to children’s trust boards and the careful prioritisation and planning that goes on in them is a very good contribution, and the Bill is very helpful. Behaviour partnerships are extremely valuable. Early evidence from pathfinder pilots has been very positive, with local authorities, such as North Tyneside, North Lancashire, Lincolnshire and St Helens reducing permanent exclusions to zero or near zero through effective partnership working. Furthermore, a report by the National Audit Office that was published in July found that 80 per cent of head teachers felt that partnerships had improved attainment and behaviour. They deliver results. However, the same report found that while the vast majority of schools were working in behaviour partnerships, a significant minority were not working together effectively. We want all pupils and schools to benefit from successful partnerships. This is why it is vital to have a statutory duty and why guidance, which has been in place since 2005, does not go far enough. The annual report to the children’s trust board is a light-touch accountability requirement designed to encourage all schools to play a full role in partnerships. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, could not achieve this. A group of schools could fail to work together effectively, and more than two schools might not be practical in rural areas. We prefer to leave the composition of partnerships to local decision-making. The report is also an opportunity for partnerships to take stock of what they have achieved. For example, statutory guidance will ensure that partnerships with disproportionate levels of exclusions among certain groups, such as children with SEN, can address that as a priority. The annual report will enable schools to assess their progress in this area. I understand the concerns of some teachers, and they will be an important consideration. We do not intend this to be an additional burden. We listen very carefully to teachers, but that is not the view of all teachers. The NASUWT has described the requirement to report to children’s trusts as an important necessity, and we are working to ensure that any information schools have to provide is aligned with existing data streams to avoid extra bureaucracy. I am very grateful to the NASUWT for the support it has given us in developing behaviour partnerships and behaviour policy and in working to ensure that teachers know how much we have strengthened the position for teaching staff. This is also an opportunity to set out what contributions other partners can make to support the behaviour and attendance strategy that we expect to be included in the children and young people’s plan. It is important that children’s trusts take this strategic interest because behaviour and attendance impact on the delivery of a number of wider local outcomes relating to anti-social behaviour and narrowing the gaps in educational attainment. We know how important it is. I hope that with the reassurances that I have offered and the views from across the House in support of this the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.