Clause 17
Education and Inspections Bill
5:15 pm
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 353, in clause 17, page 12, line 23, at end insert—
‘(2A) Regulations must provide that alterations falling within subsection (2)(b) may be implemented only if the conditions in section [Conditions for new foundations] are satisfied.'.
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 354, in clause 18, page 13, line 5, at end insert—
‘(1A) But proposals for a prescribed alteration involving the acquisition by a foundation or foundation special school of a foundation established otherwise than under SSFA 1998 may be published only if the conditions in section [Conditions for new foundations] are satisfied.'.
New clause 6—Conditions for new foundations—
‘(1) A new foundation may not be established unless it contains either—
(a) at least two secondary schools within six miles of each other, or
(b) at least two primary schools within six miles of each other.
(2) A new foundation falling within subsection (1)(a) may also include one or more nursery schools, primary schools, further education colleges, Academies, City Technology Colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, and other such other educational establishments and training providers within the local area.
(3) A new foundation falling within subsection (1)(b) may also include one or more nursery schools, secondary schools, further education colleges, Academies, City Technology Colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, and other such other educational establishments and training providers within the local area.
(4) A new foundation falling within subsection (1) shall be known as a “community learning trust”.'.
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
The amendments are paving amendments for new clause 6, which we have tabled to explore further the model that the Government have in mind for trust schools, and to offer a particular model based on collaboration. Elements of our concerns and our reasons for tabling the amendments have been picked up in the guidance and the helpful document that was circulated at the end of this morning’s sitting. However, there are other elements that we want to probe further, and we would like to place on record why we favour a more collaborative model.
Let me first place the issue in context. As we have said in Committee and on the Floor of the House, we are not opposed in principle to external partners being involved in education provision. However, we have sought to put on record, both here and elsewhere, details of the safeguards governing the types of organisation that would be involved. We have also said that we would not want an external partner to usurp the direct accountability that parents currently enjoy through the governing body. We will discuss some of those issues shortly when we come to the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bury, North. We are also unhappy about giving schools greater freedom on admissions, although we are happy to give them greater financial freedom and would like all schools to have greater freedom in dealing with the curriculum, as academies currently do.
Critically, any model should include collaboration, and that is why we tabled the amendments. On page 4 of the document that was circulated at the end of our morning sitting, the Government make provision for a group of local schools to work with a trust, and that touches on many of the issues that we are raising, but we would like to broaden that provision. It is important that a trust involves collaboration between schools or between schools and colleges or other providers. In that way, the trust will be embedded in the local community, rather than just being part of a national chain, in which case its concerns and objectives might relate more to the national brand and the national profile than to what was good for the local community.
The model that we propose would have the benefit of preventing cherry-picking. It would prevent trusts from coming into an area and picking off the good schools, rather than working to benefit all the schools in the area.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
Does that mean that the Liberals oppose the very good work of the Mercers’ Company, which has a range of schools, and which would benefit very much from being able to establish further schools under its brand nationwide? The schools in the Mercers’ Company family that I have visited are fantastic and include the Thomas Telford school, which is the best comprehensive school in Britain.
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
What I am saying is that we particularly favour a model of collaboration. Certain people—the hon. Gentleman has alluded to one example—have a track record of involvement in education, and that would be a different matter. We are concerned about particular trusts coming into an area, picking off the best schools and moving across boroughs, rather than working in collaboration for the benefit of all schools in the area. Given the focus on league tables and exam results, there is a danger that chains of schools will have an incentive to become elitist and to use their freedom on admissions to exclude difficult or under-achieving pupils.
If trusts are to be involved in several schools, that implies that there will be a much greater commitment to the local area. As outlined in the guidance that the Minister circulated, such trusts could be made up of several partners. The vision that we have laid out would allow organisations other than just schools to be involved in forming partnerships. For example, external partners such as youth services providing child care or youth, social or family support could link with learning providers. There could also be links with FE colleges, as we discussed at considerable length during this morning’s sitting.
The key point about collaboration is that it would ensure that the trust model provided greater diversity in the curriculum and greater choice for young people. The benefits would include the ability to share teaching expertise, which will be vital if we are to work towards providing for Tomlinson or even just the rather limited version of diplomas that are offered in the Bill.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The model that the hon. Lady outlinesis interesting. Would she include in it private organisations that might play a role in management or education provision itself?
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
Another possibility could be work-based learning providers that were private companies. That is precisely the kind of vision that we are trying to draw out. The point is that a trust would be based in a local area, rather than spread throughout the country, with favoured schools being cherry-picked. Our proposal would provide for a model of integrated learning involving further education colleges, work-based learning providers and any other expertise that could be offered in an area. It would allow schools, particularly disadvantaged ones, to overcome, for example, shortages of specialist teachers in subjects such as science, maths and languages.
It is notable that the shortage of specialist teachers occurs particularly in disadvantaged areas. Let usconsider the statistics. Only about 4 per cent. of teachers throughout the country lack specialist status, but in many central London boroughs the figure can be as high as 15 or 16 per cent., so the disparity is huge. It might be interesting to consider our model for those areas.
Such collaborations may happen already. However, we are concerned about the rhetoric behind theBill. Admittedly, we have not heard that rhetoric in Committee, where this Minister is leading on the Bill, but there has been rhetoric from No. 10 about picking off different schools—about schools operating inisolation in a competitive model. Our concern is that there will be a disincentive to the kind of collaborations that can happen already and that some of the good collaborations that have happened in many areas and that are helping to drive up standards will be broken.
Our model would strengthen the collaborations that can already happen, but they would happen in the context of the safeguards that we dealt with in relation to earlier clauses and that we will come to in the next string of amendments.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
Let us be clear about what the new clause would do. It states:
“A new foundation may not be established unless it contains either...at least two secondary schools within six miles of each other, or...at least two primary schools within six miles of each other.”
This proposal is another example of the position that the Liberal party has adopted on the Bill, which is deep hostility. That position is as mistaken as the position that the Liberal party took on the Iraqi war—a position that Lord Ashdown, its former leader, also believes was a mistake.
The new clause would completely destroy the central tenet of the Bill, which is trust schools. It would confine the establishment of such schools to the situation of a local federation and it would restrict foundations to controlling groups of schools in a local area. It would rule out two possibilities. First, it would rule out the possibility of a national educational organisation trying to set up a nationwide chain of schools, as the hon. Lady admitted. That would rule out companies such as the Mercers’ Company, a City of London guild, which has a fantastic track record in the provision of education in this country. When the hon. Lady is out of Committee and has time to go to the Thomas Telford school, as I did just before the Committee started, she will see an example of how education in this country should be run. That school provides all the vocational education that she and her colleagues have talked about, but it also has very high standards of academic education.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
It is unclear why the hon. Gentleman argues that the proposal would prevent trusts with a national reputation from building a national chain of schools. The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Brent, East simply says that they should build federations of schools. A federation is at least two schools. There would be nothing to prevent an organisation that wished to build a network nationally from doing so, but it would be building a network of federations rather than individual schools. According to the arguments that the hon. Lady has put—
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
First, the hon. Lady explicitly ruled out such national organisations in her remarks. Secondly, the new clause explicitly says:
“A new foundation may not be established unless it contains either...at least two secondary schools within six miles of each other”
and so on. A particular company may well not have two schools, or may not want to have two schools, within six miles of each other. The schools may be spread nationally—throughout the country. However many it had then, it would fall foul of the amendment. That would prevent the establishment of such branding-type organisations, although they would be an effective way to inject innovation and high standards into the education system. That is a basic element of the Bill, which is why it will be effective when it reaches the statute book.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
Will my hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that it is perverse to suggest that the Mercersor the Leathersellers—another guild involved in education—could be competent and proper people to establish two schools but not one? Perhaps my hon. Friend will explore why people say it. Might it be a slightly disingenuous policy on the part of the Liberal Democrats and others?
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I had not mentioned: there is a requirement in the new clause for two schools, which would rule out foundation status for individual schools. That would be a huge disappointment. It would also rule out the possibility of individual schools acquiring a bespoke trust design to meet their specific needs. The amendments would hinder the main objective of the Bill, which is to raise the quality of education available to children.
Annette Brooke (Children & the Family, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the thrust of the amendment is to promote collaboration rather than competition? Cannot collaboration raise standards effectively?
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
I am in favour of collaboration, and other provisions in the Bill encourage it. We debated earlier a clause imported from previous legislation that is all about federations of schools—clause 11. However, I understood from the remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, East that the new clause specifically rules out the Mercers’ Company approach to education, which is, I think, a basic principle of the Bill. I think that that will be very successful when it is up and running in the years ahead. I rest my case there, and urge the Liberal Democrats to withdraw their amendment; if they do not, I urge hon. Members to vote against the new clause.
Greg Mulholland (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education & Skills; Leeds North West, Liberal Democrat)
I find some of the hon. Gentleman’s comments a little extraordinary. His tangential remarks about the Iraq war were more to be expected from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings; perhaps some influence is being exerted. We are clear that the amendments and new clause are setting a challenge to us all. We consider that there is not sufficient collaboration at this stage and that competition will prevent collaboration. We also feel that the foundation idea does not involve enough in the way of local connection. That is what we are trying to explore. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Part of our reason for tabling the amendments and new clause relates to the academies that we have discussed already. Academies are supposed to replace failing schools. The Government insist that the sponsors involved in academies are philanthropic. However, the Committee has agreed, from the evidence of the handful that are up and running so far, that admissions and exclusion policies are being used to weed out the more difficult, ill-disciplined and hard-to-teach children.
With the educational climate as it is, focusing on exam results, league tables, Ofsted reports and nationwide comparisons, it is natural that those who run schools will focus on improving their standing in those areas on which they are publicly judged. The key point is that, by contrast to what applies to academies, trust sponsors are not even obliged to sponsor a failing or coasting school. Where is the incentive to get involved with a school that is failing? For those reasons we believe that there should be collaboration, and in the community learning trust model, with groups of schools, the problem is avoided.
At the moment, we rely on the good will of those setting up foundations. Surely it is better to have some safeguards to protect against such cherry-picking. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading:
“The Bill will help us to raise standards in our schools, especially the under-performing schools in our most challenging communities.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2006; Vol. 443,c. 1474.]
That is unlikely to happen if foundations are able to cherry-pick the best schools with which to work. That would merely solidify a two-tier system, with foundation schools at the top and LEA community schools at the bottom.
A further potential problem is one that we have seen with academies, which is that an LEA has a vested interest not in a particular school but in promoting the achievements of all schools in its area, whereas a trust, even one set up in a poorly performing school, may be tempted to improve its results at the expense of other schools in the area by cherry-picking pupils.
Why are we so afraid of federation and collaboration? As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East said, sharing teaching expertise wouldhelp failing schools. We could also share school management. In my constituency, the excellently performing school Prince Henry’s grammar school, a comprehensive school, has lent its head teacher to a famous school in Bradford, yet the school’s leadership remains excellent. Both schools have therefore benefited. There is a shortage of head teachers, so why not use that model of collaboration?
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion for that sort of sharing. Both he and the hon. Member for Brent, East made some good points about extending that to other agencies, other providers and others with an interest in education. However, I do not understand why that would exclude support for a single school. As my hon. Friend said, some who want to get involved with education at the moment want to get involved with a specific school, but that is not necessarily a principle for collaboration.
Greg Mulholland (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education & Skills; Leeds North West, Liberal Democrat)
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but more than one institution has to be involved or it cannot be a federation. It could be a primary and a secondary school, or a secondary school and a further education college. There are different ways of doing it, but that is a necessary principle.
I turn to a subject that I know interests the hon. Gentleman—special educational needs provision. Not all schools can afford or even find sufficient SEN support. Again, why cannot schools work together? We accept that collaboration happens now without the need for formal relationships. We believe that formal relationships via a community learning trust would ensure that trust schools could not opt out of existing informal arrangements, which would guarantee such relationships where they currently do not yet exist.
Finally, I turn to governors. It is a question of accountability. I am sorry, Mr. Chope, but that subject comes under the next group of amendments.
I am surprised at the comments of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. We suggest an approach that involves collaboration, that enshrines local connection and that has far more local accountability. Those are the principles that the Liberal Democrats are trying to bring to the Bill.
Angela Smith (PPS (Yvette Cooper, Minister of State), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Sheffield, Hillsborough, Labour)
I shall try to be brief. I challenge the notion suggested by the Liberal Democrats that collaboration is necessarily prevented by schools running in an independent fashion. We should remember that further education institutions are already independent, and the Liberal Democrats have never once suggested that FE institutions are not capable of working in collaboration with local schools. Indeed, they say that it already happens. Collaboration can be just as effective with a group of schools working independently as it is in the local authority community model that we are using at the moment.
Indeed, the model that we should have in mind when discussing this clause is that of a strategic framework developed by a local authority, the commissioner of local provision. Within that collaborative strategic framework, we need to have schools working with outside partners to develop expertise, to innovate and, perhaps most importantly—it is certainly the most important point for me—engaging employers in the work of our schools.
It has taken us a long time to get to grips withthat difficulty. Nationally, we have businesses thatdesperately want to engage with the education system and schools that say, “We want employers to take more of an interest in our work. We need our young people to be engaged with employers and to have meaningful work experience that develops career pathways through to employment.” However, neither of the sectors has ever quite managed to achieve its ambition. Trust schools are perhaps the means by which real collaboration between employers and schools can develop.
In Sheffield, we already have a model similar to that. We have a collaborative framework that tries to engage employers directly with schools by taking employers’ representatives on to governing bodies. However, that has not proved to be enough, so we need to go a stage further. A strategic framework, if it is properly managed and if the political will is there, can also cover special educational needs, looked-after children and exclusion and behavioural issues. There is no reason to believe that charitable trusts will be opposed to ensuring thatproblems relating to behaviour and exclusion are equally shared around a local authority area. If the political will is there—and commissioners who have to ensure thatit is there are knitted into the strategic framework—there is no reason for it not to work.
We need to broaden the idea of what a trust can be. Everybody is imagining that the trusts will be restricted to private enterprise and to McDonald’s-type outfits. The way to denigrate a model is to apply the lowest common denominator. Let us just think more imaginatively and creatively.
Greg Mulholland (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education & Skills; Leeds North West, Liberal Democrat)
I am sure that the hon. Lady realises that broadening the concept of trusts is precisely what we seek to do with this new clause and amendments. Does she not accept that?
Angela Smith (PPS (Yvette Cooper, Minister of State), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Sheffield, Hillsborough, Labour)
All I see is an attempt to denigrate trusts and the possibility of their working in a collaborative manner. In my city we have Sheffield Theatres, a charitable trust, which could work well with our performing arts specialist schools. That could do effective work for children in our city. We also have a sports trust, which runs some of the best international sporting facilities in the country and most of our leisure centres. There could be very exciting opportunities for employment, sports science and the development of expertise among our young people if that trust were to work with our sports specialist schools.
More than anything else, we need an engineering trust in Sheffield. Our city desperately needs engineering skills for the future. It was built on engineering and I am confident that most parents and other citizens would welcome an engineering trust.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch, Labour)
This might not be connected to an engineering trust, but does my hon. Friend see the scope for a co-operative school to be established following models that exist under co-operatives and social enterprises?
Angela Smith (PPS (Yvette Cooper, Minister of State), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Sheffield, Hillsborough, Labour)
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. I would not rule out any possibility in terms of forming charitable trusts so long as it fell within the framework of our guidance. We have to be creative.
Angela Smith (PPS (Yvette Cooper, Minister of State), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Sheffield, Hillsborough, Labour)
I will now move to a conclusion. I think that I have made the case for viewing the trust model in a perhaps more creative and imaginative way than has been recognised by the Liberal Democrats. I shall finish by making another point about special educational needs, because the trust model should apply equally to special schools.
The possibility of bringing innovation and best practice into the system is more relevant to the special needs population and to special needs education than any other. We need to personalise learning for children with special needs as much as we can. That area of practice needs innovation. So many charities are working in the field of special educational needs that it cannot be beyond the realms of possibility to imagine charitable trusts that are set up to exploit and use the expertise that is available out there in the special needs sector.
I do not want to tie particular charities down to an arrangement that I have not even discussed with them, but if we think things through, the National Autistic Society, for instance, could engage with our schools to use their expertise successfully. The society is in touch with parents and the professionals, so let us think through what we can do with the model. It offers a way forward that will help to personalise learning for children and expand the opportunities available to them, including their career opportunities in the long term.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith). She has injected precisely what we need in this Committee, which is a bit of inspiration, creativity and excitement about what the proposals in the Bill and the next stage of reform could mean. I thank her for that.
The combined effect of amendments Nos. 353 and 354 and new clause 6 would be to provide that the governing body of an existing foundation or foundation special school could publish or implement proposals to acquire a trust only if it met certain conditions on involving other schools in the trust. Specifically, all proposals by an existing foundation or foundation school to acquire a trust under the Bill would have to contain either at least two secondary schools within six miles of each other or two primary schools within six miles of each other.
New clause 6 would allow other organisations to be partners in a trust. Although I recognise that the list in the new clause is not exhaustive or prescriptive, there are nevertheless a number of obvious omissions, such as parent and community groups, businesses and the interesting examples that my hon. Friend identified as potential partners. The hon. Member for Brent, East has made it clear that her intention with amendments Nos. 353 and 354 and new clause 6 is to probe—I hope that it is only to probe—the extent to which trusts would support collaborations. My criticism is of the narrow view and the constraining effect on the ability of trusts to contribute to schools and standards in the way that we would want them to.
The proposals relating to collaboration are unnecessary. A wide range of collaborations between different types of schools are already flourishing, as many hon. Members have mentioned. Schools are already collaborating effectively to deliver a broad 14-to-19 curriculum. We have promoted collaboration through, among other things, the excellence in cities programme. Soft federations are developing in local areas. As the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) rightly said, there are some very effective head teachers working with other schools to drive up standards—not just in his constituency, but throughout the country, and quite often supported through some of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust’s projects—and, of course, academies and trusts will be encouraged to collaborate, and support and challenge each other, in the same way as are schools.
I do not think that any Member has argued against the potential benefits that a wide range of collaboration can bring. The amendments, and the approach behind them, are fundamentally wrong. It is not undesirable for a number of schools, primary or secondary, to work together in a trust. Far from it; that could be an excellent model. We have suggested previously, as an example of good practice, that a charitable incorporated trust could provide the necessary long-term relationship and framework to allow a network of schools to collaborate in order to help to raise standards and share best practice.
In case the hon. Member for Brent, East comes back at me and says, “Well, you have just identified a whole range of ways in which schools are already working collaboratively,” the problem with trusts is that too often those collaborations are based on ad hoc arrangements. Sometimes heroic individuals have helped to form that collaboration, and when they move on they take with them that expertise. One of the big contributions that the trust model could make would be to enable a more permanent route through.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State referred to, and I think that I did too in an earlier part of the Committee stage, a presentation in Downing street from a group of headteachers who are working already in successful schools, but helping also to drive up standards in schools performing less well. They suggested that that is why federation could be an important way of raising standards for children, and an example of how trusts might be of great benefit.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The right hon. Lady is making a persuasive case for why we need a diverse approach to a diverse range of needs. She said that it would be useful, sometimes, to use trust schools to make permanent the best features of collaboration, but will she accept that sometimes there is a need for a particular counter-dynamic and so collaboration would be right sometimes, but less relevant or pertinent later on? The flexibility that she described works both ways.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Trusts might well be an important way in which to bring permanence to collaborations, and enable us to bring in external partners for support.
We are not arguing, however, that they would be the only way in which schools could collaborate. Trust schools might well be engaged in other local collaborations—perhaps a 14-to-19 collaboration that was not part of a trust arrangement. So developing a trust arrangement, even in collaboration with other schools, would not limit their ability to work in partnership with other schools, perhaps locally or with other networks of which a school might be part.
The trouble with the amendments is that not only would they require certain types of partnerships between schools in all cases involving a trust, but they would prevent a number of potentially positive collaborations. For example, isolated rural secondary schools that might be more than six miles from the nearest other secondary school would be denied the opportunity of working together in a trust. They would rule out also the possibility of trusts supporting a network or partnership of schools at opposite ends of the country using perhaps IT links to share good practice; and the option also of a trust involving one primary and one secondary school. Headteachers in some areas are thinking about what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole described as vertical federations. We could envisage the possibility of vertical trusts, but that would be ruled out by the amendments.
Furthermore, valuable as can be the possibility of having another school as an external partner in a trust, it would not be the most appropriate model for all trusts. I do not think that it should be for central Government to try to second guess or pre-empt local decisions. Dare I say to the hon. Member for Brent, East, who has been making that case in relation to other amendments, that the decision on what kind of trust would be most appropriate to the individuals of each school is one that is best taken locally by the governing body of that school? Of course withinthe decision-making process there will be local accountability, which we have set out in considerably more detail in the statutory guidance to decision makers that I made available to the Committee this morning. The matter is best taken in a way that does not assume that one size fits all, and that fulfils our desire to ensure that all children can access an education tailored specifically to them.
The rationale behind trusts is to allow schools to raise standards by strengthening collaboration and drawing on the expertise and energy of their partners to support strategic leadership. They will be backed by an organisation that shares their aspirations for their pupils, knows their community, can support their continuing improvement and provides them with governors. There will not be a single model for ensuring that that happens; schools need to be able to choose with whom to work and how, in order to support the needs and aspirations of their pupils and local communities.
Different bodies will of course bring different perspectives, experience and skills to support certain aspects of a school’s mission. We have spelled out in the other document that I have made available, “What trust schools could offer”, quite a few scenarios showing types of partnerships that could benefit schools. Without being exhaustive, I shall give a few examples.
There could be a partnership, as we have heard, between a successful school and a weaker school, offering opportunities to both parties to enhance leadership skills. A trust could be formed by higher education institutions and universities, using their particular expertise to help schools better to prepare young people for advanced study, to provide important progression routes to or help schools to tap into subject specialisms in the institutions.
A group of schools spread throughout the country could work with a single trust and incorporate a business or charitable foundation, or follow examples such as the Mercers’ Company or others that hon. Members have identified. A national network of schools could provide expertise in developing specialist subjects in the curriculum. Employers could play a role, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough rightly said, in the ways that she identified in her examples and by talking locally about the contribution of theatres and sports trusts.
A trust could be established by businesses and local partners to support schools across a community, for example in a regeneration area, to bring in links with regeneration work and create new opportunities for children to help to meet their individual needs.
All of those possibilities are examples of collaboration, for which the hon. Member for Brent, East has argued but which would be ruled out by the tightly constrained way in which her amendment is written. There may be many circumstances in which it would be best for more than one school to have a shared trust, but not all schools will find it necessary or appropriate to work in a trust with others. For example, Southend-on-Sea borough council is working in partnership with Prospects college, a vocational training provider, to establish in Southend a trust school with leading-edge vocational specialism. It is an exciting initiative, bringing together vocational provision on one site. It links only to one school, but it is precisely the sort of contribution to vocational provision, in a school that has had a difficult time, that I would have thought would be welcomed by the hon. Lady. Her amendment would rule it out.
Of course I take seriously the concern that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West identified as cherry picking. We are completely clear that the benefits of trust status must be used to drive improvement and provide support and capacity for the schools and children that most need it. That is why the schools commissioner will play a key role in ensuring that schools in disadvantaged areas are able to benefit from trusts; in encouraging potential trusts to focus their interest on weaker schools and those in disadvantaged areas that are in the greatest need of support; and in encouraging schools in disadvantaged areas to think about how a trust could not only be beneficial to the school and its pupils but bring about wider changes and gains for the local community. As I have said, for schools wishing to work with other schools, trusts will be one option that we hope they will consider, but there will continue to be other options.
I understand that these were probing amendments, and I take the hon. Lady’s assurance that she can see the benefits that can come from trust status and from the external support and drive that we believe it will bring. I hope that she recognises that her amendments would limit that innovation and creativity and will, therefore, withdraw them.
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
We tabled the amendments and new clause 6 to probe what the Government meant by their trust model and how committed they were to a model of collaboration, rather than a highly competitive model. I am grateful for the Minister’s clarifications and I accept her point that the amendment has been drafted so tightly that it excludes some of the things that we particularly wanted to include. However, its intention was to generate debate and to get on record the commitment that the Government have to a collaborative model, and many of the Minister’s comments were helpful.
I am not entirely satisfied that there is not still rather contradictory rhetoric coming from different parts of Government about a collaborative versus a competitive model for education. We remain rather concerned about rhetoric surrounding independence and whether this may be taken to be a disincentive to collaboration. However, I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance and I take seriously the technical criticisms that she made about our amendment. Therefore, we will go away to consider whether we wish to bring forward some of our points in a different format on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 188, in clause 17, page 12, line 30, leave out paragraphs (c)and (d).
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 101, in clause 17, page 12, line 39, at end insert—
‘(g) any change involving an increase in the number of pupils that may be admitted to the school or an enlargement of the premises in any case in which, in the opinion of the local education authority concerned, such change would, to any material extent, prevent that authority, or the governing body of any other school maintained by that authority, from performing and carrying out the duties and functions in relation to education imposed upon them by this or any other enactment.'.
No. 339, in clause 17, page 12, line 39, at end insert—
‘(g) any change of the admissions criteria of the school, unless by agreement with the governors of that school.'.
No. 102, in clause 19, page 14, line 14, at end insert—
‘(m) prohibiting approval of any alteration involving the expansion of a school in any case in which such expansion may be considered detrimental to the opportunities available to the local education authority or to the governing body of a maintained school in its area to satisfy obligations imposed by this or any other enactment.'.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
The amendment deals with the capacity of an existing foundation school to change its status to a community school. It would delete the text in clause 17 that prevents that from happening. That would have been entirely logical and rational if the Bill reflected the unadulterated, pure spirit of the original White Paper, which prevented local authorities from opening new community schools, meaning that foundation schools would not be able to transfer their status to become community schools.
However, the situation is different now. The Government have, in my view, listened carefully and sensiblyto those who argued that there was a case for local authorities to open and build new community schools, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has set out carefully the criteria by which local authorities would be able to do that. She has also outlined conditions that would go further than that, which would require local authorities not to hold competitions for certain new schools. Now, given that local authorities have been giventhe capacity to open new community schools, we are accepting implicitly that the community school is avalid model, which can deliver as effectively as other schools the higher standards that we all seek, and it is contradictory, therefore, to deny certain foundation schools the right to become community schools.
Realistically, I do not think that many schools with foundation status would choose that option. However, the possibility must exist. Certain circumstances in some parts of the country might lead foundation schools to welcome the option: for example, where a foundation school was struggling; where the governors were demoralised or inadequate, or both; where the management and leadership had not delivered the right vision for the school, had not succeeded in driving up standards and did not have the immediate prospect of attracting more pupils; and where the foundation school was located in a high-performing local authority. I have said before that I am slightly sceptical of the argument that there is a direct relationship between the quality of an individual school and the quality of its local authority. However, in those circumstances, it would certainly be logical for the foundation school and governing body to have the right to apply for community status.
Amendment No. 101 takes us back to the implications of the expansion of individual schools. I do not want to go through the arguments that were made when we discussed a previous group of amendments. This amendment would simply mean that any proposal to expand the numbers in an individual school must be set within the context of the impact on the local authority and on neighbouring schools. Amendment No. 102 deals with the same issue in a subsequent clause.
We have demonstrated how the future expansion of one individual school cannot be seen in isolation. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton gave us an interesting anecdote about the attempts of the Montessori school in Brighton to expand. His view would be different, but I think that we have to accept that the decision was probably the result of a lengthy period of local consultation and the culmination of the considered view of all other schools in the area, as reflected by the local authority, that there would be damaging consequences if that school were allowed to expand.
We have to take account of the instability that can be injected into the system if one school exercises an automatic right to increase its numbers. Of course, the local taxpayer faces wider costs if that has a damaging effect on neighbouring schools. The Government have already accepted that such decisions cannot be taken in isolation. I welcome the commitment in the further education White Paper, to which my hon. Friendthe Under-Secretary referred this morning, to the presumption of expansion in favour of sixth-form colleges to counterbalance the presumption of expansion of sixth forms in schools, as well as the opening of new sixth forms in schools. I am not sure what happens when we have two simultaneous presumptions in favour of mutually contradictory objectives, but that is a matter that the Government will have to resolve as the policy progresses.
What would happen in the case of a single-sex school that was hugely popular and wished to increase its numbers? Is it not obviously the case that if that school increased its numbers, it would have a direct, distorting effect on the balance of the sexes in at least one neighbouring school and probably more? That seems to me the most obvious example of where plans to expand should be set within the wider context. That is why amendment No. 101 makes it clear that expansion plans should not be permitted if they would prevent other schools from carrying out their duties.
Finally, I want to refer to the question of those schools that select wholly or partly by ability. The Government have said explicitly on previous occasions that schools that select wholly by ability will not be able to expand. My recollection of the debate on Second Reading is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that schools that select partly by ability will not now be able to expand. First, where in the Bill is that restriction made clear? Secondly, for those schools that select partly by ability, does the embargo on future expansion apply to the total numbers admitted to the school or to the percentage of those admitted who are selected by ability?
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
With the exception of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), this group of amendments is yet another backdoor attempt to thwart some of the Bill’s main principles. In moving amendment No. 188, the hon. Member for Bury, North claimed that it was the logical conclusion of the concessions that were made on enabling local authorities to propose a community school. He wants to take that concession one stage further, which should be a lesson to the Minister, because if she gives people an inch, they will want to take a mile.
Leaving paragraphs (c) and (d) out of the list of alterations that may not be made to a school would simply make it possible for a voluntary foundation or voluntary school to go back to being a community school. Given that the overwhelming majority of schools are community schools, that would be a retrograde step. There are 10,961 community primary schools and 2,193 community secondary schools, but there are only 3,754 voluntary aided primary schools and 559 voluntary aided secondary schools. Overall, community schools represent 63 per cent. of the total. If we want to create a more diverse range of schools, the last thing we should be doing is creating more of the schools that already dominate.
The Government were right to create a one-way, Yale-lock system for the adoption of foundation status. Subject to all the safeguards in clause 23 about removing a foundation, we support the Government’s policy in that regard and therefore oppose amendment No. 188.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
If 50 parents submitted a request for a foundation school to revert to being a community school would the hon. Gentleman not wish to support their request?
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
No, because the purpose of the Bill, and the direction in which the Government seek to move education policy—a direction with which we agree—is to create a more diverse range of schools. Allowing more community schools to be established would contradict a direction of travel that will lead to the higher standards and higher quality of education that we all want in our schools.
Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 would prevent a school from admitting more pupils or expanding its premises if, in the opinion of the local education authority, that would prevent other schools in the area from performing their existing functions and duties. Again, the amendments would prevent or limit the expansion of good schools. They would undo the measures in the Bill to sweep away the bureaucratic and entrenched interests that have until now been highly successful in preventing good schools from expanding. They would not so much reintroduce a surplus places rule as reintroduce school organisation committees, or at least the effects that SOCs had in terms of atrophying the system.
It is important that we do all that we can to make it easier, not more difficult, for good schools to expand if they wish to do so. We have a shortage of places for pupils at good schools, and instead of endlessly debating how we allocate those places, we should all be working out how to increase the number of good schools and the number of places at them. That is why I am so astonished that anyone should table amendments to make that objective more difficult. The Conservative party wants more good schools and more places at good schools. We will therefore oppose amendments Nos. 101 and 102 if they are pressed to a vote.
On the point about whether changes that are made to one school will impact on others, it would be helpful if the Minister could clear up an issue that has emerged from our reading of the draft guidance to decision makers, which was circulated at the end of this morning’s sitting. Paragraph 3 states that one factor to be taken into account in deciding whether to acquire a trust should be
“Concerns that the Trust will have a negative impact on school standards”.
On page 8, under a heading relating to the factors that local authorities need to consider when deciding whether to refer a proposal for a trust to the adjudicator, the guidance similarly states that one factor will be
“Concern that the Trust will have a negative impact on standards.”
However, under the next heading, which relates to the factors that the school’s adjudicator or the school governing body needs to consider when deciding whether to acquire a trust, the guidance states that one factor will be whether the trust
“will contribute to raising standards at the school”.
The question, therefore, is whether the first two phrases that I quoted refer to standards at the school acquiring a trust or whether they need to reflect the possibility that the acquisition of a trust in that school will impact on standards in other schools. I had not thought that they meant that until I saw the wording on the bottom of page 8, which specifically refers to standards at the school. Some clarification from the Minister on this point would be helpful.
I believe that the decision by one particular school to acquire a trust should have no impact on standards at other schools. If it makes a school better or increases standards, that is very welcome and is the whole objective of these measures. If by raising standards the school becomes more popular, that again is the objective. There is an underlying current of opinion among some Labour rebels—there are indications of this among the Liberals too—that the problem with trying to create schools with higher standards by, for example, acquiring a trust is that it creates a two-tier system and that because a two-tier system must be wrong, we should not attempt the reform.
We already have a two-tier system in the state sector. There is a wide gap between the two tiers: there are the excellent and good schools on the one hand and the underperforming and coasting schools on the other. The reforms in the Bill will help to narrow that gap by raising standards, and the trust school element of the reforms is crucial to that.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham, Labour)
I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 101 and 102. These are probing amendments to try to test whether those proposing a trust would consider the likely impact of the trust, particularly if it would expand, on neighbouring schools. I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for sending round the guidance for decision makers who are proposing trusts. It is enormously helpful. We can see from the guidance that the impact not only on neighbouring schools but on other bodies that are likely to be affected by the trust is something that those proposing trusts must consider.
Does the Minister agree that in many instances—I can give examples from my constituency—schools are likely to pursue trust status with partners with whom they have already developed a relationship? For example, where there is a centre for vocational excellence it is likely that the school will build on those partnerships. The guidance is very helpful in that regard and should allay some of the concerns that people have about trusts.
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
I want to speak very briefly in favour of amendment No. 188. As the hon. Member for Bury, North said, it does not appear to be logical, given the other concessions that the Government have made, for them to continue to constrain schools so that they cannot reverse their foundation status if they sowish. As the hon. Gentleman said, there may be circumstances in which parents are very unhappy with the way in which the school is being governed and about the management of the school. They may wish to revert to community status. It does not seem logical for those schools then not to be able to do so.
Will the Minister tell us how the proposals in clause 23 apply here? I know that they come later in the Bill but they are relevant to this amendment. I hope that she will use the opportunity to discuss those proposals here. I am very sympathetic towards the intention behind amendments Nos. 101 and 102. There is a need to balance the effects of excessive expansion of a particular school on those in the surrounding area. We know that if school rolls begin to fall, particularly if they begin to fall dramatically, there is a financial impact on those schools. The school can then spiral into decline and that may have dire consequences for schools that may otherwise be popular and good schools. It leaves the students at those schools in a difficult position. We support amendment No. 188 and are very sympathetic towards amendments Nos. 101 and 102.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury, North when he moves an amendment. As we were walking down the Committee corridor to the Division earlier, I said that he and I were the two outriders in the Committee. I like to think that he is a man of principle who has a certain vision. I must admit that my vision is slightly different from his. No doubt that plays into the hands of the Minister because she can say that it shows that she has it right: she represents the middle way or the third way. Was it not Aneurin Bevan who said that he who walks in the middle of the road sometimes gets knocked over?
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
That is the Liberals.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
Well the Liberals on this Committee are not in the middle of the road, they are driving on the left.
The hon. Member for Bury, North will forgive me if I do not support his amendment, even though I can understand the logic of what he is trying to achieve throughout the proceedings on this Bill. He believes—I hope that I am not doing him a disservice—in democratic control of the nation’s schools, which he thinks is best vested in democratically elected local authorities. That is a perfectly logical point of view. Sadly, that model has not worked.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman says that. As we were walking together, precisely at the moment when we reached the Lobby, I was about to explain to him exactly what I did believe, which is not quite what he says I believe. Perhaps that is a discussion for another occasion.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
You know, this is a real page-turner, is it not, Mr. Chope? We are now desperate to know the end of the conversation. It is not for me to say what the hon. Gentleman believes in, but I can say what I believe in. My vision is of maintained schools becoming independent charitable trusts—all of them. Therefore, I cannot support any amendment that seems to make it easier for those schools that have more independence, namely voluntary aided schools and foundation schools, to become community schools. Anyway, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, given that63 per cent. of schools are already community schools, there is no point in any more schools becoming community schools because—this is where I support the Minister—we want to create choice and diversity.
Amendment No. 339 relates to subsection (4). It gives the Secretary of State power to make alterations and, as I said in similar circumstances in an earlier debate, I fully support the exceptions that are listed under the heading
“None of the following alterations may be made to a maintained school—”
However, there is an omission from the list of categories. Why is it that, apparently, the Secretaryof State can make alterations to the admissions criteria of a school? Why are those crucial admissions criteria not listed? Is it just an oversight, or is there a hidden agenda?
My amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from ordering any change to the admissions criteria of a school unless the governing body of that school agreed to it. Why is that important? Unless the amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State will have the power—the Minister can deny this when she rises; that is why these debates are useful—to order a school to impose a certain catchment area; to apply a test of parental commitment; or to cease to apply a test of ability for admissions, as is done for grammar schools. We already know that the Minister does not want the existing 164 or 165 grammar schools to expand. Could there be—I am sure that the Minister will deny this, in which case my amendment will have served some purpose—some power now vested in the Secretary of State that allows her to interfere in the tests of ability that apply in the few remaining grammar schools?
It is well known that while the Conservative party recognises that there is unlikely to be any great expansion of grammar schools, we are certainly not opposed to the existing ones. They are extremely popular and provide a test of excellence.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
My hon. Friend is right, of course, to celebrate the excellent work done in grammar schools, including those in his and my constituencies. However, he may have hit on an even more ingenious point than he supposes, because presumably a future Secretary of State, at some indeterminate point in time, could, by the same means, encourage schools that do not at present do so to select by academic ability. If the power to remove that capacity exists, the power to impose it must logically exist. All members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Bury, North, can therefore support the amendments with alacrity.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
If I were the hon. Member for Bury, North I should be extremely worried about that. Could there be a hidden agenda to work in the opposite way? There is something curious, is there not, about the list in subsection (4)? It seems quite comprehensive—for instance, given what I said earlier, I am very pleased about paragraph (a) under which no change
“in the religious character of the school”
may be made; I believe that schools should be able to preserve their ethos. However, just as important to many parents—perhaps more important than religious character if we are considering all schools—are the admissions criteria. Those have been at the heart of political debate for half a century, so we need to know why there is no mention of admissions criteria in the Minister’s list.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
It is worth remembering that clause 17 deals with a range of prescribed alterations and subsequent clauses deal with the processes for proposing alterations. We have had a broad discussion about the possible range of the prescribed alterations. I shall discuss the reason for not including admissions in the clause towards the end of my remarks.
There is a certain amount of truth in the accusation by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that when we agreed that, in the case of new schools, there might be an argument for a community school in some circumstances, we opened the door slightly to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North for amendment No. 188. I disagree with my hon. Friend that the logic of our position on new schools implies the logic of his amendment.
We have, of course, established arrangements to deal with the circumstances of new schools. We think that those are the right arrangements and that the decision about entry into the competition should be for the Secretary of State. The amendment, however, does something rather different. It would make it possible to change the category of an existing foundation or voluntary school, which it was planned would continue in operation, to that of a community school.
We have, I think, made it pretty clear, and I have certainly made it clear in debating the relevant provisions, that our vision and policy is for the local authority to enhance its new role as a commissioner, rather than a direct supplier, of education services, and for the school increasingly to enhance its role with the support of external partners and the bringing in of similar capacity; the impetus that comes from the self-determination of a foundation or voluntary aided school is likely to help it to focus on improvements that need to be made for its pupils and in its work in with the community. That has been the objective of the Bill and the reform.
Interestingly, my hon. Friend used the example of a failing school. He talked, I think, about demoralised governors, and suggested that as a possible justification for changing from foundation or, presumably, voluntary aided status to that of a community school. I think that if a foundation or voluntary aided school is in such a state that it needs greatly increased local authority control, a change of category is unlikely to be an adequate or appropriate solution. If the failure is very extreme, as we will discuss later in the Bill, a better solution might be for the school to close and to make a completely fresh start. Although there might be an option for it to be a community school, it does not necessarily follow that a community school would be the best solution. A competition might be just what was needed to bring in a range of possible approaches that would increase dynamism and a sense of possibility in the school.
In the case of the high-performing local authority to which my hon. Friend referred, as the Bill makes clear, it is able to work in that school improvement role with all schools, regardless of their category. A school would not need to change from foundation status to community status in order to benefit from a high-performing local authority that put an emphasis on standards, which drove improvement through the way in which it operated.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
It is clear from the draft guidance which my hon. Friend circulated this morning that in the case of a trust school, that is, a foundation school with a foundation, that collapses completely, the assets and the functioning of the school will revert automatically to the local authority. If we accept that the local authority should take over responsibility fora school that faces complete collapse, is it not inconsistent that the local authority should not have a role in the case of a school whose governing body is trying to prevent complete collapse by asking to be taken back into the local authority?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
The position with respect to assets is that if the relationship with the trust were broken the assets would revert to the governing body of the foundation school. Those assets would revert to the local authority only in the case of complete closure.
My hon. Friend is conflating two separate issues: the correct protection in the long run of public assets, as spelt out in the arrangements with respect to a trust school, and the various approaches that could be taken to a school that was failing or was challenged. In those circumstances, a decision by the governing body to change its status is not the appropriate way to deal with failure or its lack of morale. With the support of the school’s commissioner, looking to a trust that might be able to support and reinvigorate the leadership and governance of the school is more likely to be an effective way forward for the school.
I do not want to labour the point further. We envisage a new framework for schools and local authorities in which the local authority is the champion of parents and assures the quality of provision rather than being the direct supplier. We propose a more dynamic system of self-governing schools with the confidence to take charge of their own development, and the amendment runs contrary to it. That is why I oppose the amendment.
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
Does the Minister accept that there may be other circumstances in addition to those outlined by the hon. Member for Bury, North where the school may be failing? There may be other circumstances in which parents are unhappy with the ethos or direction of the school without it necessarily failing and they may wish to change that ethos by bringing it back under the remit of the local authority. Are those not valid concerns, which they should be allowed to pursue?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
In those circumstances, if the parents were unhappy with the school’s trust partner, there are the proposals in clause 23 that enable the removal of that trust. We have identified a range of ways in the Bill to give parents a stronger voice in what happens within schools, including a duty on the governing body to respond to parents. I do not believe that the change to community status would assuage parents’ concerns in the sorts of circumstances that are under discussion, and this would certainly run counter to the new role we envisage for local authorities.
Turning to amendments Nos. 101 and 102 on expansion, we are determined to transform the school system so that it responds better to parents’ needs and aspirations. We want every parent to feel confident that the system is delivering for their child, and that they can choose a place at an excellent school that is more dynamic, with weak schools replaced quickly by new ones, with coasting schools pushed to improve, and with the best schools able to spread their influence and success throughout the system.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in her letter to the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, we are also aware of concerns about how the expansion of individual schools fits in with the strategic role of the local authority. We believe that schools that are popular with local parents and that wish to expand should normally be able to do so. That is why there is currently a presumption in statutory guidance that proposals for the expansion of successful and popular schools should be improved.
What is new in the Bill are the decision-making powers reverting to the local authority, as opposedto the school organisation committee. School organisation committees will be abolished, and their powers will be transferred to the local authority. Guidance to local authorities will make it clear that there should be no arbitrary obstacles preventing good school expansion. However, school expansion will not be a free-for-all; it will be for local authorities to make decisions on whether a school’s proposal to expand should be approved. In reaching any decision, the local authority—or the adjudicator, if it is referred—will consider the impact on overall standards in an area. The school may appeal to the adjudicator, who will consider the individual merits of the case on the basis of statutory guidance.
Let me now respond to the point of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. My view on the guidance is clear; notwithstanding what I have said in respect of expansion—that the local authority may want to consider that, and it is the role of the local authority to address standards throughout an area—the governing body, which is the decision maker in respect of determining whether to take on a trust, will want to make that decision on the basis of the impact on standards within a particular school. That is the clear intention in this guidance, which is for decision makers.
Let me now return to expansion. Expansion will not be the answer for every good school. Reasons such as the size of the school, the nature of the site or parental wishes may mean that expansion is not the right option. That is why we accept that schools could spread their expertise in a different way. They could form joint ventures, or federate with other local schools to share best practice, to pool resources or to offer pupils and staff a wider range of opportunities.
Before I move away from expansion, let me cover the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North about wholly selective and partially selective schools. We will make clear in guidance to decision makers the route through which expansion proposals are represented; that is not a legislative route. The presumption should be that there will not be an expansion of schools that are wholly selective. Because we have been clear that we do not want new selection by ability, for schools that are partially selective expansion would be limited to expansion of non-selective places. That would lead to a reduction in the proportion of selective places in a school, if the number of places expanded.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
Does that not provide an interesting precedent for the policy towards wholly selective schools, by allowing such schools to expand, but only on condition that they expand with a non-selective intake?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
That is an interesting challenge. That would involve a complete change to their admissions arrangements which would take us considerably further beyond simply proposals in respect to expansion. In legislation as well as guidance to decision makers,they are clearly in a different category of school. A distinction is made in law between schools that are wholly selective—the guidance is clear that they should not expand—and schools that are partially selective.
Annette Brooke (Children & the Family, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
I would be grateful if the Minister helped me with the definition of “expansion”. Reorganisation might take place in my area, with the age of transfer decreasing from 12 to 11. By definition of the grammar school system, more pupils will be in the selective system after the change in the age of transfer. Is that covered by her statement that there will be no more selection?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
That is a very interesting point. Perhaps I could get back to the hon. Lady about that. I can say, though, that the other driver for expansion—access to the capital pot that we have made available to fund the expansion of popular and successful schools—will not be available to selective schools or for selective places in partially selective schools. The two routes for determining expansion, which are guidance to decision makers and funding, are clear in those circumstances.
My worry about the amendments is that, although I hope I have given hon. Members some reassurance, I would not want a situation in which a school expansion that made sense could effectively be prevented by a local authority. Of course it is important that local authorities consider the wider implications, but schools should not be held back artificially and the choice of parents restricted.
As commissioners of educational services, local authorities will need to act as the champions of pupils and parents to promote choice and diversity with respect, as we have discussed, to earlier provisions in the Bill, and they will have an important planning role. That will inform their decisions when planning how many schools their local area needs, where and how big those schools should be, what schools would serve the area best and whom they should serve.
Local authorities will draw up strategic plans for the pattern of schools in their area as part of their children and young people’s plan. They will map what is needed in their area, considering demographics and the balance of provision with respect to gender. That might address the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North raised. If I remember correctly—I will write to the Committee to correct myself if necessary—sex discrimination legislation now requires that during the planning process, local authorities ensure equal or relatively equal access to single-sex schools. That would have to be part of the strategic planning in the circumstances that my hon. Friend spelled out. Although I have disagreed with him on those circumstances, I hope that I have been sufficiently persuasive for him to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to the other outrider on the Committee and speak to amendment No. 339 on admissions. Clause 17, to which the amendments apply, provides for regulations to set out the changes to maintained schools, requiring the publication of statutory proposals called prescribed alterations in the legislation. The clause does not deal in any way with schools admissions, because those changes do not fall under the category of prescribed alterations, or the regime for dealing with them to which theclause relates. That is because a school’s admissions arrangements can be altered under three differentprocesses.
The first process is the normal annual consultation and determination for school admissions as set out in section 89 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Admission authorities consult on their arrangements, determining them in the year prior to which they are to apply and including any changes that they may decide upon. In the case of foundation and voluntary aided schools, the governing body is the admissions authority; for community and voluntary controlled schools, it is the local authority.
The second way in which a school’s admissions arrangements can be changed is under the adjudication regime. Following consultation, the statutory consultees—broadly speaking, other schools in the area, the local authority, the admissions forum and, in certain circumstances, parents—can object to a school’s admission arrangements and the adjudicator will then reach a binding decision on the objection. We are also extending the adjudicator’s power to consider a school’s admissions arrangements in their entirety on submission of an objection, and for that decision to be binding for two years, rather than for one year as at present.
Those are the routes through which changes to admissions procedures can be made. I am aware, not least from other amendments that he has tabled, that the hon. Member for Gainsborough would rather that only schools themselves had the power to change admissions arrangements. However, it is clear from a minority of persistent cases that some schools seek to set admissions arrangements that are in the interests of the school itself rather than the interests of local children. It is important to put a strong adjudication process in place to ensure that all schools adopt fair admissions arrangements that increase choice for local parents.
Requiring changes to be agreed with the school’s governing body, as the amendment does, would regrettably not ensure in every case that the interests of parents and children were upheld.
Finally, regulations made under the Bill will set out procedures under which admissions arrangements can be modified to bring them into line with the admissions code as part of the approval process for statutory proposals to enlarge schools or to establish new ones.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
That is quite a complicated reply, but am I right in saying that no Minister can use clause 17 to change admissions criteria?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman is right. No Minister can use clause 17 to change admissions arrangements, because it relates to prescribed alterations and admissions arrangements do not come under that category. I shall quit while I am ahead, and invite my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North to withdraw the amendment.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her detailed reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 187, in clause 17, page 12, line 39, at end insert—
‘(g) a reduction in the statutory proportion of elected parent governors on a schools governing body.'.
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
With this it will be convenientto discuss the following: Amendment No. 218, in clause 20, page 14, line 34, leave out
‘or a relevant change in the instrument of government'.
Amendment No. 219, in clause 20, page 14, line 37, leave out
‘or a relevant change in the instrument of government'.
Amendment No. 220, in clause 20, page 14, line 39, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 221, in clause 20, page 15, line 5, leave out from ‘foundation' to end of line 6.
Amendment No. 222, in clause 20, page 15, line 10, leave out from ‘foundation' to ‘and' in line 11.
Amendment No. 223, in clause 20, page 15, line 14, leave out from ‘foundation' to end of line 15.
New clause 17—Foundation schools: independence of governing bodies from foundations—
‘The instrument of government for a foundation or foundation special school established pursuant to proposals made under section 7 may not provide for the majority of governors to be foundation governors nor may any alteration be made pursuant to proposals published under section 18 to the instrument of government of any foundation or foundation special school so as to provide for the majority of governors to be foundation governors.'.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
In the same way that the first of the previous set of amendments dealt with some inconsistencies that I thought were present in the policy towards community schools, this group of amendments deals with a similar set of inconsistencies in the attitude to parental involvement and influence. It is those issues that I wish to tease out.
Amendment No. 187 calls for a block on reducing the proportion of elected parent governors on school governing bodies. Amendments Nos. 218 to 223 would prevent a majority of the governing body from being given to one set of governors. New clause 17 would do the same, but in a slightly different form.
It is now nine minutes past 7 o'clock, and the Whip has indicated that we have to continue to complete consideration of clause 18. I spent some time on the previous amendment, so I shall be brief.
Had the original White Paper, the Government’s argument in favour of it and the Bill when finally published not put such emphasis on the importance of parent power, the amendments might not have been necessary. However, if we are to be consistent and if we are saying that the new system will be far more driven by parents than the current system, and that parents’ voices will be heard and given more attention, it seems illogical to squeeze them out of school governing bodies.
For 30 years, the governing bodies of most schools in the United Kingdom, although not all—I accept that the majority of the governing body of some schools is allocated to one set of individuals, or one group—have operated on the basis of a partnership between the representatives of parents, staff, the local authority and the wider community. Nobody is unaware of the difficulties of continuing to enthuse people to take part in their school governing body. It is sometimes extremely difficult to encourage parents to play a full role, but the partnership model seems to work well. It has wide support and it ensures an adequate line of accountability from the school and the local authority, and also between the school and the wider body of parents.
It seems illogical, therefore, that it will be possible to reduce the proportion of parents on a governing body and hand it over to a foundation, in the case of a governing body deciding to go down the trust school route. If the Government are insisting on that approach and on the importance of the foundation having the majority on the governing body, we need more compelling arguments than have yet been put and evidence that schools that already have a foundation providing the majority on the governing body have automatically been able to deliver higher standards. Where is the evidence of a direct relationship between that composition of a governing body and higher performance?
In that spirit and with those few arguments, I support the amendment.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
Amendment No. 187 would prohibit a reduction in the proportion of elected parent governors on a school governing body. As members of the Committee know, the proportion of governorsof varying categories—whether parent, staff, LEA, community or foundation—is governed by the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003. According to paragraph 7.4 of the regulatory impact assessment, trust school governing bodies will have the same model as voluntary aided schools. The size of the governing body is determined by the instrument of government but must be no fewer than nine and no more than 20 governors, excluding sponsor governors or additional foundation governors.
The regulations also state that one third of governors of foundation schools shall be parent governors, but, according to the regulatory impact assessment, trust schools for which the trust appoints the majority of governors will have fewer elected parent governors than trust schools for which the trust appoints a minority of governors. The reason—this is an important quote—is because
“it is not feasible to provide for both (a) the Trust to appoint a majority of governors, and (b) the governing body to comprise one third elected parents (plus other categories of governors) without the governing body becoming unmanageably large.”
That can be demonstrated by a simple numerical example. Let us suppose that the instrument of government for a trust school provides for the bare minimum of LEA and staff governors—just one and two respectively. The trust then must determine the composition of the governing body in accordance with regulations that state that the number of foundation governors must outnumber the other governors by two. If the amendment was accepted, one third of the governors would have to be elected.
Therefore, if one does simultaneous equations, the minimum number of governors needed to satisfy the requirement would be one LEA governor, two staff governors and—if parent governors are to represent one third of the total number of governors and foundation governors are to outnumber the other governors by two—eight parent and 13 foundation governors. One plus two plus eight plus 13 equals 24. Twenty-four governors would be unwieldy, and the number is four more than the maximum in the regulations.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman’s maths, but I am afraid that the matter is even more unwieldy than that, because he has left out of his equation staff governors and, I think, community governors. When they are included, the number becomes even larger than 24.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
I thought that I had included both those categories, but we can debate the maths later. Either way, it is an unwieldy number. With a governing body numbering fewer than either my 24 or the number that the Minister comes up with, it is mathematically impossible for the trust to have a majority of two and for one third of the governors to be parents.
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
This is something of a circular argument. Surely the simple solution if we want to give priority to parent governors on the governing body is not to have a majority of governors appointed by the trust.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
That goes to the root of the Bill. If we do not allow foundations to have a majority of governors, a lot of trusts will not be established. Perhaps that is the purpose of the amendment and the reason why the hon. Lady supports the amendment, if indeed she is. The effect of amendment No. 187 would be to create unwieldy trusts.
Amendment Nos. 218 to 223 would remove the right of a foundation to appoint the majority of the governing body, which would drive a coach and horses through the whole objective behind trust schools, which is to achieve diversity in the ethos and management of schools. It would also severely limit the number of charitable trusts that would come forward to set up trust schools.
Finally—I am aware of the late hour—I ask the Minister to confirm one or two things in the draft guidance that she circulated at the end of this morning’s sitting. Paragraph 8 of the draft guidance, on page 2, says:
“The Government does, however, wish to ensure that a number of safeguards around Trusts are put in place. All Trusts will be charitable and will have to have specified charitable objects around the advancement of education.”
That is a good thing to have in the guidance. Will the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to remove education as a charitable objective? To do so would make the whole guidance meaningless. Education should continue to be one of the tenets that make up charitable objectives in the Charities Acts.
The Minister cites two statutory instruments in paragraph 8, both of which are dated 2007. When are they likely to be published in draft?
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
I shall speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North, which go to the heart of accountability. We believe that governing bodies should be representative of parents and the local community. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton implied that we cannot have trusts without giving them majority control of governing bodies, but I do not see why that should necessarily be the case. We would never argue that the majority of the governing body of a community school should be LEA representatives. Instead, we would argue that a substantial proportion of governors should be parent governors and other representatives of the community. I do not see why that case should not be made for trust schools and new foundation schools.
The argument that there would be an unwieldy number on the governing body is entirely circular. Surely, of all the people to whom a school should be accountable, the most important are parents whose children attend that school. The provisions for parent councils are a mere sop; they do not give them the real accountability for decision making that we want the governing body to have. We hope that the hon. Member for Bury, North will press the amendment to a vote. If he chooses not to, we will oppose its withdrawal.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
There has been some interesting discussion on the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North focused his concern on the role and engagement of parents. I will come back to how we will ensure that that is maintained.
The hon. Members for Brent, East and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have come at the issue from different directions, but both focused on the implications of the amendments, which is to prevent the charitable foundation of a trust school from appointing the majority of governors. The hon. Lady argued that that is her intention: it is what she wants to happen, but that is a fundamental problem with the amendments. We believe that appointing the majority of governors is one way in which a charitable foundation can strengthen the leadership and governance of a school. We want to extend to all schools the freedom to shape their own destiny that has helped voluntary and foundation schools to succeed.
My hon. Friend accepted the fact that voluntary aided schools currently have a majority of their governors appointed by a charitable foundation. Such schools are doing well. He did not accept that point, but asked me to provide evidence of the impact of that process. We have already provided evidence to the Education and Skills Committee that they are doing particularly well, including in the most disadvantaged areas. In voluntary aided schools where more than 20 per cent. of pupils are on free school meals, 47.6 per cent. achieve five or more A* to C GCSEs, rather than 40.6 per cent. in other schools. Such cases represent one piece of evidence that could support the argument that the impact of the external charitable organisation having a majority on the governing body has helped improve quality.
The important point is that we are not arguing that any school has to take on a trust, nor are we arguing that having taken on a trust, or by considering taking on a trust, any school must allow a trust to make up a majority of the governing body. We are arguing that there may be many circumstances in which that is the most appropriate way to ensure the most effective delivery of the support for leadership and governance in the school and the contribution that the trust can make to that governance, which is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve in the trust proposals.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The Minister will accept that once she argued precisely that. The White Paper says:
“At the heart of this new vision are Trust schools. We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to require a Trust.”
When and why did she change her mind?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
I have not changed my mind. I am making a distinction between compulsion and flexibility and enabling. The legislation is all about allowing schools to move in the direction that we believe to be the most effective, which is spelled out in the White Paper. Some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues wanted to promote a compulsory approach to trust schools, but by building on the arguments about school autonomy that have previously been so important to Opposition Members, we are providing schools with that decision-making ability. We argue that where a school believes that the needs of pupils will be better met by the additional drive and enthusiasm that the appointment of the majority of a school’s governors a trust can bring, we should not deprive pupils of that opportunity.
We have repeatedly made it clear that no school will be forced to acquire a trust or to allow the trust to appoint a majority of its governors. The legislation is enabling rather than prescriptive in this regard because we believe that such decisions are best made locally, in accordance with local circumstances and the particular needs of each school. It will be for the governing body of a school to decide whether to acquire a foundation and whether that foundation should appoint the majority of governors. That will happen in accordance with the statutory guidance that I have made available to the Committee today, which will place the process in an important context of local accountability and the transparency of the proposals. The process will make clear the criteria that the decision makers—in this case, the governing body—should bear in mind when making that particular decision.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked a couple of questions about the guidance. I can reassure him that one of the reasons for choosing the advancement of education is that it is a charitable object and will remain so. His second question concerned the regulations mentioned in the guidance. That is a reference to sets of regulations that I have already distributed to the Committee. They are the illustrative regulations relating to clauses 17 to 22 and to clause 31. We are determined to ensure that that governing bodies have the choice of allowing their trusts to appoint the minority or majority of governors if they believe that that is right for their school.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North raised an important point on trust school models that also relates to what was said by the hon. Member for Brent, East. That model retains the stakeholder model of governance that has been at the heart of governance of maintained schools. It is part of the reason why conflict between a majority of foundation governors and other governors arises, because we are clear that there should continue to be elected parent representatives and local authority representation, and that there should continue to be community and staff representation, even in circumstances in which the foundation has a majority on the governing body.
Whether there is a majority or a minority, parents will continue to play an important role, both as members of the governing body—whether elected, or appointed by the trust—and on parent councils. We need to recognise, however, that it is not always that easy to get parents to stand for election to governing bodies in the numbers that we want, so we need to have a wide range of ways to engage parents and hear their voices—not just in trust schools but in schools more widely.
Parents will continue to constitute one third of the governing body in a trust school, as in all maintained schools. If a trust appoints the majority of governors we shall require trust schools to establish a parent council with an advisory and consultative role. The governing body will also have a duty to consult the parent council on the conduct of the school. So we are protecting the interests of parents in trust schools—arguably we are actually broadening parents’ ability to have an impact, because parent councils in particular will provide an important forum for parents to contribute to their own child’s education and to contribute in improving the school system. The evidence suggests that they are a more accessible way to involve parents in decisions about the school because they are more informal and involve less commitment, and can involve more parents than the governing body.
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
Does the Minister not recognise that there is a difference between the onus to consult parents and a vote on a governing body?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
Of course there is, but does the hon. Lady accept that two or three elected parent governors, important though they might be, should not be the beginning and the end of parental representation and engagement in our schools? My point is that we need a range of ways for parents to be engaged, and our proposals on trust schools will provide more opportunity for parents to have an impact while maintaining important roles on the governing body.
Annette Brooke (Children & the Family, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
It sounds as though there is a trade-off between the parents’ council and the number of parent governors. Personally, I am very supportive of parent councils, but I do not like trade-offs whereby we have fewer elected parent governors. Why can we not have both?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
Let me go back to first principles. Let me first remind hon. Members that a third of governing bodies must be composed of parents, regardless of the status of the school. I explained to the hon. Lady why it is not possible to have both a majority of foundation governors on a governing body and at the same time have all of the one third as elected parent governors. To some extent the hon. Lady is right, but we are increasing parents’ ability to engage in schools where the foundation is able to appoint a majority of the governing body.
I have made the arguments as to why there will be cases when the trust, having the majority of the governing body, will be crucial in helping to drive the governance of the school. Alongside that, we are ensuring that the realistic ability of parents to have a voice and to contribute to the school is protectedand, in many cases, enhanced. Of course, parental engagement is one issue that governing bodies will consider when deciding whether to become a trust school. Governing bodies must have the flexibility to make those choices in light of local circumstances.
As we have discussed previously and will no doubt discuss again, we have built in safeguards in respect of trust acquisition and of trusts appointing a majority of the governors. For the first time, we are providing in legislation for a governing body to be able to remove a trust or to move from a trust appointing a majority of the governors to a trust appointing a minority of the governors if there is dissatisfaction with how the trust is performing.
The provisions in the Bill are well balanced. They provide the right level of flexibility for schools to take the right decisions about the best model for them. The necessary safeguards are built in, including a mechanism for removing a trust or its ability to appoint a majority of the governing body if the governing body feels that that is best. I therefore hope, not least because my voice is becoming a little weak, that my hon. Friends will agree not to press the amendments, which would be unnecessarily restrictive.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
I shall make two points in reply. First, underlying the debate is the anxiety that some people would have about why the trust needed a majority on the governing body. By and large, governing bodies have operated on the basis of a degree of consensus. Those with particular views about the direction of a school or about the staffing policy in a school have been forced to persuade a majority of the governors to agree to the policy. The fear is that, with a built-in majority, there will be no need to persuade; there will be a need simply to assert and vote. I am sure that the Minister would accept that that concern is legitimate.
My other point is that, as the Bill is written, the outgoing governing body would decide, first, whether the trust option was to be pursued and, secondly, if the trust option were pursued, whether the trust should have a majority or a minority on the new governing body. In one respect, the outgoing governing body, which presumably by definition has failed to give leadership to the school, is the group of people least well qualified to decide what the future composition of the governing body should be. Perhaps the Minister will consider whether a wider group of people needs to be involved in the decision. If there is to be the majority option for the trust, a wider group of people needs to be involved in the decision. Perhaps at the point of decision, both about trust status and about the trust having a majority on the new governing body, the wider group of parents should be involved. However, I leave that for the Minister to consider.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
It might be useful at this point to remind my hon. Friend that, as we spell out in the guidance, either the decision for the acquisition of a trust or the decision to allow a trust to take a majority of the governing body could be referred to the adjudicator by the local authority on the basis that we set out in the guidance.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
I understand that, but the adjudicator is going to be a very busy man with all the references that he will have to take. It would be far better for the issue to be resolved by consensus at school level, within the existing parent body and perhaps with the consultation of others, than to force yet another decision right up the chain of command to the adjudicator. However, given that it is 19.34—very late—I do not want to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Division number 16 - 3 yes, 13 no
Voting yes: Annette Brooke, Greg Mulholland, Sarah Teather
Voting no: Roberta Blackman-Woods, Ian Cawsey, David Chaytor, Mary Creagh, Andrew Gwynne, Meg Hillier, Phil Hope, Laura Moffatt, Jessica Morden, Jonathan R Shaw, Angela Smith, Jacqui Smith, Anne Snelgrove