Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 61, in clause 5, page 3, line 22, leave out from ‘must’ to end of line 25 and insert

‘, with a view to improving standards, appoint suitable persons (to be known as school improvement partners) in sufficient numbers to provide assistance and support to head teachers, and to such other members of the school community as the head teacher may consider desirable, of maintained schools, academies, city technology colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, and such other educational establishments as may be prescribed.’.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 62, in clause 5, page 3, line 30, at end insert—

‘(2A)Where two or more governing bodies and head teachers of maintained schools have agreed to establish an informal federation with a view to improving standards at their schools, the local education authority which maintains them will be considered to have fulfilled its duties in respect of subsection (1).’.

No. 63, in clause 5, page 3, line 35, at end insert

‘, academies, city technology colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, and such other educational establishments as may be prescribed.’.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

The amendments are essentially probing amendments designed to test further what the Government mean the role of school improvement partners to be. The Education Act 2005 introduced a lighter touch for inspection. SIPs were established in documentation in 2004, and the Government have said that they intend SIPs to be critical friends. For that reason, we have tabled amendments with slightly different wording to explore exactly what the Government mean by that. We have suggested that SIPs should provide assistance and support rather than advice—a slightly more dictatorial term—to head teachers and the governing body. We want Government to be a little more explicit and to put on record their view on the role of SIPs.

If the relationship is to work well for schools, it will require considerable sensitivity and discretion, so a number of things are important. Do schools have the right to reject any SIP imposed on them? Will there be a discussion between the school and the local education authority? What will be the nature of the SIPs? Will a SIP be one specific person trained through standardised training? There is a danger that it might be an adviser who is on-message rather than someone who is focused on the school’s needs for improvement. It could be someone who is specifically focused on targets or a Government-led predetermined agenda.

Amendments Nos. 61 and 63 would extend the provisions of the clause to all types of schools. If the Minister considers SIPs to be such a great invention, why have they not been extended to all other types of school, particularly to academies? If the Government believe that they are important for driving up standards, it would be the Secretary of State’s role to appoint SIPs for academies.

Amendment No. 62 explores whether informal relationships through federations of schools might be another means of driving up standards, and whether the Government would consider that to be adequate. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to those questions.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I shall deal with the Liberal amendments in turn. I suspect that our views on the matter might be rather similar to the Government’s. The case has not been made for including other kinds of school within the orbit of the Bill. There is a good debate to be had on the role of school improvement partners, and no doubt we will have it later in our consideration. There is a specific debate to be had on who those people will   be and precisely what role they will play. However, I am not sure that it is appropriate to extend their remit to

“academies, city technology colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, and such other education establishments as may be prescribed”.

That seems to me such an all-embracing category—with those other establishments that may be prescribed, not to mention those that are named—as to make it impractical, and more than that, undesirable. School improvement partners are part of the Bill, and the Bill deals with particular circumstances in particular schools. The amendment would widen it beyond what is reasonable.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

Our intention was to widen it to all schools, precisely to get the Government to explain why the provision should be applicable only to certain schools. As I said to begin with, the amendment is a probing amendment intended to establish the Government’s thinking about school improvement partners. The hon. Gentleman has not explained why they should not be applicable to other schools.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The hon. Lady will achieve her purpose, then. She will certainly be able to probe the Government, who will no doubt explain. I was offering my own view, so she has succeeded in probing not only the Minister but the Opposition. That is something that she can take pride in.

It seems to me that the amendment is closely in line with a case that has been made by the National Union of Teachers. Indeed, it is almost exactly what the NUT would have wanted. It is entirely appropriate to draw on the expertise of outside bodies, and the Opposition must do that, because they do not have the civil service available to them, as Ministers do, to support them at every turn. I understand the problems that small parties face, but it is worrying that the amendment shows the Liberal Democrats merely acting as the mouthpiece of an interest group. I am unconvinced by the amendment.

James Clappison (Hertsmere, Conservative)

I appreciate that the Liberal Democrat amendments to which my hon. Friend is speaking are intended as probing amendments, but does he share my curiosity about why one of them would apply school improvement partners to all schools including academies and another would, in effect, allow schools to opt out of the arrangement altogether, as they might wish?

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

My hon. Friend anticipates my next point so forcefully and eloquently, as is characteristic of his contributions, that I do not need to make it. There seems to be a problem with the Liberal Democrats not only riding on the back of organisations that have profound doubts about the Bill, namely the NUT, but doing so rather unskilfully. There is a contradiction between the amendments which my hon. Friend has articulated. I am worried about their intent, and about the application of that intent.

However, the Liberal Democrats strike something of a chord—and one must attempt to be generous and love the sinner although one hates the sin—in talking about collaboration. They are right to say that collaboration is an important element of the ways in which schools can improve and share best practice. I shall wait to see what the Minister thinks about amendment No. 62, but it makes a useful point about improving standards through informal federations. That is probably something with which parties on both sides of the Committee could have some sympathy.

The amendment’s suggested widening of the provision is not helpful. I should not want Conservative members of the Committee to take it too seriously. However, I should be interested in the Minister’s response on amendment No. 62 at least, because it has some merit.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

Clause 5 establishes the requirement that each LEA in England appoint a nationally accredited school improvement partner to each of the schools that it maintains. That is to ensure that school improvement partners are introduced universally and that they are trained and accredited to a national standard, in order that they can undertake their role credibly and effectively.

In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for Brent, East invited me to describe how we envisage the role of school improvement partners. SIPs are a key part of what we describe as our new relationship with schools. That relationship is designed to improve the way schools are held to account and supported, to sharpen and simplify schools’ external accountability and to facilitate their access to better support, matched to their needs. That is why we expect local authorities to engage SIPs and deploy them to their schools. SIPs will advise—I am surprised that the hon. Lady thinks that advising is a scary thing—and work with the governing body and the school head, as she said, as a critical friend, to help the school to identify and implement improved outcomes for pupils.

On amendments Nos. 61 and 63, I share the wish to make appropriate assistance and support available to all members of a school committee and the wish for the determination of assistance and support to be made by schools themselves. However, it is worth clarifying the remit of the SIP, which has elements both of challenge and of support. The challenge part of the SIP’s remit is the key process by which schools are held accountable to their maintaining authorities, and therefore needs to be determined by the local authority.

The hon. Lady asked whether a school could reject a school improvement partner. If a school objects to its SIP or to the nominee for that role, the authority must consider the objection and talk to the school. However, the SIP is part of the formal external accountability mechanism of a school to its maintaining authority, so the decision on appointment rightly rests with that authority. The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that a school could not reject a school improvement partner.

Robert Wilson (Reading East, Conservative)

Will the right hon. Lady explain why SIPs appear to be drawn from such a narrow group: serving heads, former head teachers and local authority advisors? Could not other professional groups be added? That would help to offer other external professional advice to schools.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

I could, but I shall resist the temptation, not least because we will cover that in a moment, in amendments Nos. 190 and 191.

The SIP’s support role is important but limited in scope. It is focused on helping to identify and broker support for the school which is relevant to its needs and those of the school community, where appropriate. The final determination of support for a school is for the school itself, however. Its choices should not be restricted to people appointed by the local authority that maintains it, as the amendment seems to imply, or to specific sources of support identified by the SIP. As a consequence, it is right that the school should also take financial responsibility for the support that it commissions.

Amendments Nos. 61 and 63 also seek to make local authorities the bodies that appoint school improvement partners for academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts. That is where we find the answer to the conflict that appears to exist between the hon. Member for Brent, East and the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

Before the Minister moves on, I want to ask her about the challenge offered by school improvement partners, which she highlighted in her response. Given the nature of the relationship that she describes, would she, for example, rule out the appointment of former teachers at a school playing the part of school improvement partners there? I sensed from what she said that she did not want the relationship to be a cosy one, and I think she is right. What view would she take of former teachers being appointed as partners?

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

First, school improvement partners need to be accredited. Having gone through that process, the local authority, as the maintaining authority, would then have to decide whether to appoint that person to a particular school. In the circumstances outlined by the hon. Gentleman, I should have said that it would not be appropriate for that SIP to be appointed to that particular maintained school.

I return to the issue of appointing school improvement partners for academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts. In law, they are independent state schools. The clause is about local education authorities appointing SIPs for maintained schools. As the LEAs do not fund and maintain independent state schools, it would be inappropriate for them to appoint their school improvement partners.

I seem to be taking the third way. That is not to say that external accountability of such publicly funded schools is any the less important. I do not know whether that was the argument being made by the hon. Gentleman, but it sounded as though it might be.

School improvement partners for academies will be subject to the same accreditation requirements as those for maintained schools, and their work will be subject to the same quality assurance requirements. However, the maintaining authority to which academies are accountable is the Secretary of State. Accordingly, the SIPs will be contracted to the DFES, and no legislative support is required to ensure that that happens.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The Minister has put her finger on it. It is not that we do not feel that the other schools mentioned in the amendment should be accountable, or that they should not be able to call on the support that she had made clear is desirable for schools that are dealt with in the Bill. We simply seek consistency. Given the different structures that exist in respect of those other schools, it seems inappropriate and inconsistent to widen the scope of the Bill. I hope that I have clarified our position.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

Consensus is breaking out.

I turn to amendment No. 62, which is about federations and the relationship between school improvement partners and schools that are collaborating. It would have the result that a local education authority would not be required to appoint a SIP to maintained schools in its area that had agreed to establish an informal federation with a view to improving standards at those schools. Desirable as federations are—the Government have supported their development—they are not an adequate substitute for SIPs, particularly given the role that I have identified for them. We want every school to have a SIP to reflect our commitment that every child’s potential should be fulfilled.

It is certainly true that federations of two or more schools can make a major contribution to raising standards. We are keen, as I suggested, to support federations and other forms of partnership among schools. Indeed, we are building on the success of such partnerships in our proposals for trust schools. However, when schools federate, they do not lose their individual identities or accountabilities. They receive funding individually, and are subject to separate inspections. The SIP will therefore have a separate role for each member school.

To facilitate that role, it will often make sense for a single school improvement partner to be deployed to each of the members of a federation, but the role must remain distinct for each member school. To maintain the integrity of their challenge function, it would not be appropriate for schools in a federation to challenge one another, as seems to be the approach taken under the amendment.

Aside from the principled arguments that I have expressed, one of our difficulties with the amendment is that it proposes an imprecise criterion to put into legislation. I do not therefore believe that it would be workable even if the policy objective was justified which, as I have explained, it is not. For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that I have responded in the spirit in which the hon. Member for Brent, East moved the amendment. She was seeking further information about many issues; I hope that I have satisfied her quest for knowledge and that, on that basis, she will withdraw the amendment.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister has answered most of my questions. She has made it clear that the Government intend to appoint SIPs to academies through the Secretary of State. It is helpful to receive that clarification so that it will be on the record. I say to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that I do not feel shame in having taken advice from the NUT. Given his new broad-minded consensus and willingness to think in an open-minded way about other people’s ideas—apparently the new Conservative ethos—I think that he was perhaps rather too scathing about the NUT. His words will come back to haunt him. We should be willing to take advice from people when we believe that it is sensible.

I am, however, sorry that the Minister suggested that it will be possible to impose on schools a particular school improvement partner. I hope that the way schools have their SIPs appointed will be far more consensual and that the right hon. Lady will encourage discussion and agreement on the appointment of someone who is appropriate and acceptable to both the local education authority and the school. It is only through that constructive relationship that progress will be made. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 5, page 3, line 22, at end insert ‘underperforming or coasting’.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 5, page 3, line 23, after ‘maintain’, insert

‘that is not highly performing’.

No. 18, in clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert—

‘(1A)A school is “highly performing” if it meets such standards as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe.’.

No. 19, in clause 5, page 3, line 30, at end insert—

‘(2A)Where a school fails to improve within two years of the appointment of a school improvement partner, a new school improvement partner shall be appointed.

(2B)A person appointed as a school improvement partner who has been replaced twice as a school improvement partner under the provisions of subsection (2A) shall cease to be an accredited person under subsection (2).’.

No. 20, in clause 5, page 3, line 30, at end insert—

‘()The Secretary of State shall publish his departmental policies in relation to the appointment of school improvement partners.’.

No. 15, in clause 5, page 3, line 40, at end insert—

‘“coasting”, in relation to a maintained school, means a school which in the previous academic year was in the third quartile nationally of the value added measure of school performance;’.

No. 16, in clause 5, page 4, line 4, at end insert—

‘“under-performing”, in relation to a maintained school, means a school which in the previous academic year was in the fourth quartile nationally of the value added measure of school performance.’.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The amendments again take us to school improvement partners. In the education White Paper, the proposal for their establishment appeared in a section on pages 37 and 38 headed “Tackling coasting schools and coasting departments”. The section outlines the objective under a new system entitled “New Relationship with Schools”. It is designed to

“reduce bureaucracy and streamline working arrangements, releasing more energy to focus on local priorities.”

I mentioned earlier my worry, which I think is widely felt, about coasting schools and coasting departments. One of the virtues of added-value measurement is that we have been able to identify precisely those sort of schools. A lot is made of poorly performing schools and it is right that we should concentrate on them, but many schools that coast achieve adequate results, although they do not excel. They do not allow the children in their charge to achieve their potential because they have become self-satisfied about mediocrity. We do not welcome that or, if the White Paper is to be believed, want it to continue any more than the Government.

We support the appropriate emphasis that is placed on coasting schools and coasting departments. Yet, the Bill establishes a duty for local education authorities to appoint school improvement partners to each school that they maintain. If the objective of SIPs is to tackle the problem of coasting schools, would it not be better to focus the attention of those partners on schools that can be identified as coasting or underperforming?

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the role of those partners. She is right to say that we will debate that in more detail as we progress through the Bill; it is an important part of the Bill. If the role of such people is to challenge and support, it is probably right that that challenge and support should go first where it is most needed. I think that the general view would be that it is most needed in those schools that are underperforming. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has, once again, mentioned the number of such schools. That has been a concern of the Committee since we began our considerations just a short time ago—it seems rather a long time at this moment because we have had such a rich and full debate so far, and I hope that that will continue—and coasting schools need the same kind of special attention.

Amendment No. 14, therefore, proposes that the imposition of school improvement partners should be limited to schools that are underperforming or coasting. In amendment No. 15, we define a coasting school; that is, one in the bottom half of a performance league. We have all come across schools like that, have   we not? They warrant the kind of approach that the Government want to apply to SIPs and I think that they need it urgently, hence our amendment.

There is a debate to be had, and we should, perhaps, have it in this Committee, about where those partners are going to emerge from. It is vital to get the right people to do the job, and we must not assume that there is an army of people out there waiting to take up the challenge. Therefore, we must ask how we should prioritise our limited resources. Our amendment highlights that issue as well. Essentially, it is saying, let us get our priorities in order and use the good offices of the people who will perform the role of partners in the most effective way.

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 exclude highly performing schools from the system of school improvement partners. “Highly performing” will be defined by the Secretary of State. In his introduction to the White Paper, the Prime Minister made it clear that the Bill was about using choice and diversity—the greater freedoms that the Bill aims to give to schools—to drive up quality and to improve standards. It is absolutely right that we should focus that drive where it is most needed: on poorly performing and coasting schools. In some ways, my most profound concerns are about the coasting schools. We know which are the poorly performing schools, and they are aware of their problem; they know the difficulties. We should not underestimate the challenging circumstances that many of them face. I have said before that I want to use the Committee to send out a loud, clear message that we support the work of all those in poorly performing schools who are trying their best to make progress. That includes governors, head teachers and teachers who do excellent work. I should also like to amplify that we should not assume that there is not good work going on in those schools.

Andrew Gwynne (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Minister of State), Home Office; Denton & Reddish, Labour)

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I have some sympathy with him, especially on coasting schools. However, I think that the Minister said earlier—I will stand corrected if I am wrong—that the reason for every school having an SIP in place is so that we do not miss out any children. Even in highly performing schools there will be children who require that support. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with that?

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention fits neatly with what I was coming on to say: in poorly performing schools there are many examples of   excellent work, and in highly effective schools there are sometimes examples of less than excellent work. There are few schools that could be said to be performing exceptionally in every way and in every department. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is not a school, a head, a governor or a teacher in the country who would not acknowledge that they could always do better.

The issue is the allocation of scarce resources. If we are to ensure that school improvement partners can deliver maximum value, they must be people of exceptional ability and we must make tough decisions about where to allocate their time and skill. I believe that it should be allocated to schools in the category that I have described.

I was about to say that although of course I have a profound concern about poorly performing schools, I am more worried in some ways about coasting schools. I was about to elucidate the fact that whereas poorly performing schools know that they have a problem, coasting schools sometimes do not acknowledge that. They will probably be getting average or better than average results. It was not until we started to measure value added, of which, as I have said, I have been a supporter from early on when the issues were first debated in the 1980s, that we had an opportunity to see more clearly—I will not say “expose”—which schools are not adding the value that they should given the advantages that they start with. Coasting schools and coasting departments should concern us more.

I hope that the amendments go some way towards dealing with the issues that I have mentioned. I trust that once the Minister has welcomed them, members of the Committee will give them the support that they deserve.

Anne Snelgrove (PPS (Lord Warner, Minister of State), Department of Health; South Swindon, Labour)

We probably all know of schools that have performed excellently but then dropped for some reason and become coasting or even poorly performing schools. An SIP for each school would help us to anticipate that happening to a school and therefore work with it to prevent it from falling into special measures.

There is an issue about scarce resources, but on principle I back the clause as drafted, saying that we should have a SIP for every school. A SIP could perhaps take on more than one school and therefore make best use of scarce resources.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Cawsey.]

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Four o’clock till Tuesday 18 April at half-past Ten o’clock.