My Lords, I move Amendment 6, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. If this amendment were to be accepted, it would make a radical change to the Bill, because it would introduce teachers. Some would regard it as odd, given the Bill’s title, that we should need to do that; but the Bill contains just a single mention of the word teacher, and even that is merely in the context of a pay and conditions warning notice.
The amendment is necessary because it highlights the fact that a number of factors need to be taken into account when pupils are not fulfilling their potential in a school—beyond, that is, a metric based on pupils’ attainment and progress for three consecutive years. That is currently the bald performance data on which the Government propose to designate a school as coasting. I have read about the interim measures and I take that on board, but none the less, there is good reason to have broader consideration.
Even allowing for a more flexible definition of coasting schools than just Ofsted grades or exam results, there will always be a spread of schools performing at different levels. Not every child can get A*s and inevitably some will be comparatively coasting, compared to others. With effective quotas on grades, to stop grade inflation, gains by one school will inevitably mean that others will do comparatively worse. Thus, as more schools become academies there is more chance that they will end up as coasting schools.
Furthermore, as both Education Datalab and Henry Stewart of Local Schools Network have shown, the measures chosen will disproportionately impact upon schools with disadvantaged pupils, not those in affluent areas. Dr Rebecca Allen, of Datalab, in evidence to the Bill Committee in another place, said,
“if a school serves an affluent community then it will not be judged to be coasting using these metrics”.—[Official Report, Commons, Education and Adoption Bill Committee, 30/6/15; col. 7.]
Laura McInerney of Schools Week has pointed out that:
“Wealthy kids don’t just achieve more than poorer kids, they also progress quicker”.
The factor that most affects a school’s performance is of course its teaching staff. All high-performing schools have inspirational, driven head teachers who
are able to translate their ethos throughout the school. But without a stable teaching staff, with all subjects capable of being delivered in a sustainable way, the head teacher alone cannot bridge the gap between performing and underperforming. That is the reason that the question of teacher supply is the most urgent one facing education in England today.
Perhaps not unnaturally, the Government are attempting to put a positive gloss on teacher supply, often by cherry-picking particular bits of information or research. But the essential facts are these. The number of entrants into teacher training has fallen steadily, from 39,000 in 2009-10 to 32,000 in 2014-15. In that year, only 93% of the target for recruitment into teacher training was achieved, compared to 108,000 in 2009-10. I am not making political points here; I am not going to highlight the fact that we have a different Government. It is too important for that, but the figures are there. We are where we are and we should be concerned about it. The Government’s favoured School Direct route is much less successful in recruiting than universities. We find ourselves in a period of rapidly growing pupil numbers because of the rising birth rate.
4.15 pm
Universities have long played a significant role in the delivery of teacher education, offering undergraduate and postgraduate courses and awarding both academic and professional qualifications. These courses were, and continue to be, run in liaison with schools, with which universities have close working relationships. However, since 2011, the DfE has introduced a number of major reforms which directly affect the recruitment and training of teachers by universities. Of these, the introduction and rapid expansion of School Direct has been the most significant in scale and scope, with a consequential impact on universities engaged in teacher education, as well as the creation of risks to future teacher supply. Labour is not opposed to School Direct. I have, personally, always been in favour of on-the-job training and there is evidence that School Direct has introduced many teachers who would not otherwise have been attracted to the profession. School Direct routes require university partnerships, but universities have not been allocated a consistent core of initial teacher training numbers and School Direct partnerships may not recruit to target. High degrees of unpredictability are systemic in the new model and this, in turn, impacts on the viability of courses. As a result, university education departments have made specialist staff redundant and three universities have now withdrawn completely from teacher education.
Despite School Direct clearly being the Government’s preferred route for teacher education, last month the National College for Teaching and Leadership announced a reduction in financial support for salary and training costs for non-STEM salaried School Direct trainees for the 2016-17 year. This announcement was made after schools had bid for School Direct numbers and universities had agreed to support partnerships with these schools. It was just before the opening of the UCAS 2016-17 admissions year and there was no consultation—a recurring theme—with schools or universities prior to this announcement. As an example
of what this will mean; in inner London, funding is £17,600 per School Direct salaried trainee in 2015-16 but this will be reduced considerably to £11,200 in 2016-17. How does the Minister believe this decision will assist in encouraging more people to become involved with School Direct? Since its introduction in 2011, School Direct routes have consistently underrecruited. In spite of heavy promotion by the NCTL, schools’ interest in SD has varied in different parts of the country, and yet regional factors are disregarded in the teacher supply model estimates. It would be helpful if the Minister would explain that.
Overall, there are wider questions about the new system’s capacity to plan and deliver teacher supply on a national and regional basis. The Department for Education cannot guarantee that any school will continue to engage in School Direct on an annual basis if its circumstances or leadership change. Even if schools are engaged in School Direct, their teacher education requirements are likely to change from year to year. Academy chains focus on their needs but are obviously not concerned about issues of national or regional supply. There is an urgent need for a change to the current direction of travel on teacher education and for the role of universities to be recognised. I suggest that they should be reinstated to their previous position.
It is self-evident that teachers are fundamental to the education system, but there are other issues that have to be taken into account when the definition of coasting is applied to a school. I hope that this, allied to the comments made in the first group of amendments, will convince the Minister. We have submitted this amendment to draw attention to an issue that neither Minister seems to want to highlight. I may be paraphrasing, but I think the Minister said that Labour likes to highlight the fact that there are problems with teachers. That is only from the point of view that I want more teachers coming into the profession, particularly in the shortage subjects, and staying in it. There are difficulties with that. Some of the School Direct traineeships have not proved sustainable, but the role played by the universities has been invaluable. I would like to have this recognised. I talked about on-the-job training. School Direct does that in one school; universities will often offer training in a number of schools. Whether or not the Minister is willing to recognise it, current levels of teacher recruitment and retention are in need of his attention and it is certainly an issue that the Secretary of State should be obliged to consider in respect of any school being defined as coasting. I beg to move.