Clause 1 - Duties in relation to high standards and the fulfilment of potential
Education and Inspections Bill
10:30 am
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
I think that it is about recognising those limits, but it must be self-evident that it is not possible to exercise functions beyond the level at which they are capable of being exercised. That is why I do not see that the particular phrase is necessary.
The second amendment to which I want to draw attention is amendment No. 95. It would delete the word “educational” in subsection (1)(b), which would then refer to
“promoting the fulfilment by every child concerned of his potential.”
The issue is to what extent the letter and the spirit of the Bill entirely match the letter and the spirit of the Children Act 2004, and of what is generally referred to as the “Every Child Matters” agenda. The whole thrust of the sentiments behind that agenda is that education cannot be separated from other public services that are essential in developing the overall well-being of children. If we focus specifically on educational potential, we will miss out on other elements of the “Every Child Matters” agenda, and we will not pay sufficient attention to health, general well-being and other aspects. I think that there is a case, therefore, for withdrawing the word “educational”, and focusing more generally on potential.
When I get the right piece of paper I shall talk about amendment No. 186. I apologise, Mr. Cook, because I have confused the numbers. I have just spoken to amendment No. 186 and I shall now speak on amendment No. 95.
Amendment No. 95 is perhaps more substantial: it links the promotion of the potential of every child with the whole issue of personalised learning. In both the White Paper and the Bill the Government give the highest priority to a major shift to a more personalised approach in the organisation of teaching in our schools. Last year, and again in last week’s Budget, they announced significant sums to enable a more flexible curriculum and more generous staff-student ratios in our schools, in order to enable the personalised learning programme to develop.
In the opening clause, and in the opening statement about the local authority’s functions, it would be useful to spell out in a little more detail the significance of the personalised learning agenda. That is the purpose of amendment No. 95, which refers to
“enabling each child concerned to have access to such teaching and learning support as may be appropriate to his needs and so as to promote the fulfilment of his educational potential.”
To bring my opening remarks to a close, in clause 1 it is important that we spell out exactly what the functions of local authorities should be in the new educational landscape that the Bill describes. I question whether we need to insert the phrase about the extent to which local education authority functions
“are capable of being ... exercised”,
and whether in paragraph (b) we need to be so specific about “educational potential”. Perhaps it would be more consistent with other aspects of Government policy if we concentrated on potential as a whole, or if we went even further and spelled out, at this point, the five “Every Child Matters” objectives for the development of children. Also, it would be useful if we could spell out at this early stage the critical importance of promoting a kind of education and a more flexible curriculum that is absolutely matched to the individual needs of every child.