Clause 5
Education and Inspections Bill
11:45 am
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
I have to admit to my hon. Friend that I have not made any analysis under human rights or sex discrimination legislation, but she makes an important point—as have other colleagues—about the impact of making legislation on the nature of school improvement partners over-restrictive.
We have been clear about the significant contribution that we expect those with head teacher experience to make, not least because the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is right—head teachers might be more likely to accept that challenge and support from other head teachers. I note as well—not necessarily warmly—that it was a Conservative Government who introduced lay Ofsted inspectors, and, I understand, lay inspectors into the police force. So his argument does not stack up in the way in which he spelt it out.
The amendment confronts the question whether, despite the commitment to have large numbers of people with head teacher experience, we want to outlaw people who do not, from contributing to school improvement. Already, many such individuals are serving successfully as school improvement partners in our schools. To replace those existing SIPs with head teachers and former head teachers would require wholesale change, and in many ways it would be rash to lose the expertise of all of those people.
I reassure hon. Members, however, that we have introduced a national system of accreditation, that I outlined when I responded to the previous group of amendments, that underpins the appointment of SIPs, and, indeed, we have included that requirement in the Bill. I was slightly surprised that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings described as bureaucracy what I think of as a rigorous accreditation process. I make no excuse for the fact that we require individuals to pass the online assessment and meet the person specification, and then to go on to be trained and assessed for accreditation.
In a moment I shall respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, East who identified—rightly—the need for not only rigorous accreditation, but continuing professional development training in some areas. Of course, we are prepared to insist, where necessary, on head teacher involvement in the school improvement partner programme by, for example, making such involvement a condition of funding support. We would do that to help to achieve, as I have said, the policy that we have set out whereby 75 per cent. of secondary SIPs deployed should have secondary head teacher experience.
Hon. Members have referred to the policy statement that accompanies clause 5 in which I spelt out the reserve powers for making regulations which would, if necessary, be the place in which to legislate for more detailed requirements in relation to the appointment of school improvement partners. On that basis, I shall resist amendment No. 190.
There are technical problems with amendment No. 191. As drafted, it would add to subsection (2)(b) the requirement that a person should be trained in the teaching of
“children with special education needs and disability.”
However, that provision relates to the person authorised by the Secretary of State to accredit individuals to be school improvement partners, not to the partners themselves, so technically the amendment does not achieve the aim set out by Opposition Members.
However, I shall address the intention behind the amendment, which was meant to refer to the people being accredited as school improvement partners. I shall mention, first, the organisation that accredits the school improvement partners, secondly, the nature of the SIP role in relation to the children, and, thirdly, our thinking on the role of SIPs in relation to special schools—a matter to which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred. The initial training, development, assessment and accreditation of school improvement partners is undertaken by the National College for School Leadership, whose future, at least under the present Government, is secure.
On the points made by the hon. Member for Brent, East on how SIPs are trained, school improvement partners do not focus solely on the academic achievement of the successful or the best. The training and accreditation of SIPs focuses on data analyses of the performance of groups of pupils in schools, in particular on identifying inequitable outcomes that might occur in the school, the factors that contribute to them, and the action that the school should take. That is supplemented by detailed guidance on how the school improvement partnership focuses with the school on issues that might affect vulnerable or disadvantaged groups of pupils—the sort of issues rightly identified by the hon. Lady. I should be happy to supply members of the Committee with the guidance, to identify the scope and the depth of the training.
The guidance includes advice that SIPs should consider in relation to special educational needs, including the effectiveness of systems in the school to identify pupils with barriers to learning; discriminating well between those with learning and behavioural difficulties; whether systems can be used to design appropriate curriculum and pastoral support, monitoring success; responding to changing needs; and focusing on whether there are effective links with other support agencies, to ensure that integrated support structures, which are often so important for children with special educational needs, are in place for pupils with additional needs in the school.