Clause 39
Education and Inspections Bill
Public Bill Committees, 2 May 2006, 6:30 pm
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 446, in clause 39, page 28, line 41, leave out first ‘of' and insert ‘and their'.
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 447, in clause 39, page 28,line 42, leave out ‘them' and insert ‘parents'.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
These are brief amendments, designed entirely to probe the Minister’s thinking about the way in which choice advisers may perform their duties. They make the point that it is not simply a matter for parents. In some shape or form, children must be involved in decisions about the future of their education. Clearly, for children coming up to the age of transfer to secondary school, parents have the prime responsibility. However, it is generally accepted within the context of the Children Act 2004, and with the appointment of a children’s commissioner to stressthe importance of a voice for children in all aspects of the way in which their health, education and welfare are delivered, that children should not be excluded from this process. The amendments make that point clear, and I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
As my hon. Friend said, this clause complements existing provision in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which gives parents and carers the right to express a preference for the school that they want their children to attend. It places a duty on local authorities to provide advice and assistance to parents in their area so that they can make the most of the choices available. We said in the schools White Paper that we wanted local authorities to look again at how to improve the independent information that they provide to ensure that they enable parents to make well-informed choices. A combination of that duty and targeted funding to provide choice advisers will enable them to do that, ensuring that those parents who are least able to navigate the school admissions process will get the help that they need.
I agree with both elements of my hon. Friend’s points. When parents are making a choice about a school, it is important, as far as possible, that they discuss the decision with their children. That is why we encourage parents to involve their children in the decision-making process, which might involve, for example, choice advisers facilitating joint sessions with children or providing parents with advice on talking through these issues with children. However, it does, as my hon. Friend said also, remain the parents’ final decision. We think that that is right, especially when it involves younger children. We are largely talking about children who will be 10 or 11 at the point at which parents make this decision.
I hope that my hon. Friend will feel reassured that we would encourage parents to involve their children in the decision-making process. However, we do not feel that it is necessary to make the legislative provision that the amendments would bring.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
I am grateful for that clarification, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
With this it will be convenientto discuss the following: Amendment No. 192, in clause 39, page 28, line 43, at end add
‘, such advice to be monitored and evaluated by the local education authority for its effectiveness, with examples of good practice being collated and disseminated.'.
Amendment No. 388, in clause 39, page 28, line 43, at end add
‘, and no person shall be appointed to provide such advice and assistance unless he has demonstrated an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.'.
New clause 46—Professional standards for teachers—
‘Professional standards for teachers shall require that all those receiving—
(a) initial teacher training,
(b) assessment for induction or as a main scale teacher,
(c) assessment for threshold or as a senior teacher, or
(d) assessment for suitability as a head teacher,
shall be required to demonstrate an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.'.
Amendment No. 387, in title, line 9, at end insert
‘to make provision about professional standards for teachers;'.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)
The clause is about choice advisers. Amendment No. 47 would add to the requirement that local authorities provide advice and assistance to parents regarding their preferred choice of school the words,
“such advice to include full information regarding the provision of special schools available in the geographical area.”
That would ensure that choice advisers include information about special schools in an area. There is often an incentive for local authorities not to publicise fully their special education provision, particularly in special schools, due to the expense of the statementing process and educating challenging pupils in special schools. Parents of such children should be able to make meaningful choices, and they should be given information on the full range of special needs provision in an area. Too often, parents find out about special schools by chance.
Page 126 of the regulatory impact assessment states that the legislation will
“ensure that help is directed to those parents that require it most and local authorities will have to promote measures that help disadvantaged children.”
Children with special educational needs often come from the very groups whom the clause is intended to assist.
Amendment No. 192 is a management-type amendment to ensure that choice advisers carry out their role effectively. One way to achieve that would be to ensure that best practice is disseminated to them.
Amendment No. 388 states that
“no person shall be appointed to provide such advice and assistance unless he has demonstrated an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.”
It has the support of the Special Education Consortium, which argued:
“Where advice and assistance is provided to parents, those providing that advice and assistance should have a clear understanding of the statutory duties owed to disabled children and children with SEN.”
It is self-explanatory, and I hope that it will have the support of the Minister.
The Special Education Consortium also supports new clause 46 and amendment No. 387. The latter would amend the long title of the Bill to include the provisions of new clause 46, which would bring in professional standards for teachers. All those receiving teacher training or being assessed to be a main scale teacher, senior teacher or head teacher would be required to
“demonstrate an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.”
The Special Education Consortium believes that to be necessary because of a series of Ofsted and Audit Commission reports that point to serious problems in the area. In its 2004 report, “Special educational needs and disability: Towards inclusive schools”, Ofsted reported:
“The quality of teaching seen on the visits for pupils with SEN was of varying quality, with a high proportion of lessons involving pupils with SEN having important shortcomings.”
It reported that, in a significant proportion of lessons,
“the teaching for the lowest-attaining pupils had weaknesses which prevented those pupils fully reaching their potential, even when the teaching for the rest of the class was good.”
In its 2002 report, “Special Educational Needs: a mainstream issue”, the Audit Commission reported:
“Many teachers feel under considerable pressure, on the one hand to meet the needs of individual pupils, and on the other to deliver a demanding national curriculum and achieve ever-better test results; research suggests that many feel ill-equipped forthis task.”
The Special Education Consortium believes that training is the key to resolving such difficulties. It argues:
“Improved outcomes for disabled pupils and pupils with SEN are dependent on the improved knowledge, skills and understanding of those working with and for them. Training holds the key to this, and SEC believes that for teachers, for school leaders and for staff working at every level of the education service, SEN and disability should be a required element in their training and accreditation.”
Of course, the Government’s policy, as set out in their 2004 strategy document, “Removing Barriers to Achievement: The Government’s Strategy for SEN,” says that it wants to see
“all teachers having the skills and confidence—and access to specialist advice where necessary—to help children with SEN to reach their potential.”
The strategy also sets out the Government’s intention to
“work with the Teacher Training Agency and higher education institutions to ensure that initial teacher training and programmes for continuous professional development provide a good grounding in core skills and knowledge of SEN and work with higher education institutions to assess the scope for developing specialist qualifications.”
In light of that, I hope that the amendments and the new clause will have the support of the Government.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
I want to speak about the responsibility of authorities to inform parents about the special provision that is available for their children. I was about to cite my experience when my daughter, who will be 21 tomorrow, walked into the room, and I thought that I was not going to be able to speak. However, she has just walked out again. One of the reasons for authorities’ not informing parents is the wording of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, which says that if a statement is maintained for a child under section 324, he must be educated in a mainstream school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents. That puts a presumption on the authorities to educate children in main school.
I know from first-hand experience that, because of that presumption, authorities do not inform parents fully of the special school provision that is available. My daughter, who has not come back yet, was educated in a non-maintained school—Kingham Hill school—in the “Greens unit” in year 7. She ended up having to go there because we, as parents, had no idea that special provision was available for children with special needs of her type. Since I have been an MP, many of my constituents have come to me with the same problem; they are not aware of what is available for them and they are not informed by the local education authority. Even when their children are statemented, they are still not informed by the LEA that special school provision could be given—and that is because, thanks to the wording of the Act, mainstream school is the presumption.
I fully support the amendment. The Bill should provide for LEAs to have a duty and a responsibility to inform all parents of what special provision is available, and for the presumption to be not on mainstream school but on where parents want their children with special needs to be educated.
Annette Brooke (Children & the Family, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiments underlying the amendments. The hon. Lady has spoken passionately about something that we all know happens, albeit some of the parents who attend our surgeries have the ability to research schools and come to ask for funding while others have not managed to get all the information. Often, the schools in question come under the next-door authority or something like that. I accept that there are big issues.
We have made enormous improvements in the teaching of those with special educational needs in all sorts of ways, such as greater professionalisation of staff, but nobody can deny that we have a long way to go. I am very much in favour of inclusion, but I believe that the pendulum has swung a bit too far towards mainstream education, so I have a certain amount of sympathy with the amendments.
My questions concern the draft code of admissions. I imagine that it covers—it certainly should—the first two amendments in terms of the information that is to be provided and the monitoring that is to take place to ensure that it has been provided, and I seek the Minister’s assurance that special educational needs will be fully covered by its provisions.
I understand exactly where the last amendment is coming from; there are so many examples. I recently asked all the local education authorities in our vicinity whether they had considered the kitemark for dyslexia in all their schools. One replied that it had never heard of it; another replied that it was working on a much wider kitemark for special educational needs, which seemed a good thing; a third replied that it did not want to know. It was very variable, which is why there is a lot more to be done to achieve a whole-school engagement with all the issues surrounding special educational needs. However, the wording here leads me to ask what the professional standards for teachers shall require, how and by whom.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
Does the hon. Lady agree that inmany teacher training schools, particularly on the postgraduate certificate in education courses, some teachers receive as little as one hour’s training on children with special needs? Some have none at all.
Annette Brooke (Children & the Family, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
I certainly cannot claim to be entirely up to date on this, although my daughter trained about 10 years ago and she certainly chose to get the whole special educational needs qualification once she was a practising teacher. That perhaps shows that she personally felt that there were huge deficiencies in what she was presented with. We are also looking for ongoing professional training, because teachers appreciate different aspects of teaching the more experienced they become. There are difficulties with the wording here and the prescription, but I am sympathetic to the aims of the amendment. There is good practice around and I should like to be assured that the Government are spreading that message. Iam not at all sure about the wording of amendment No. 388. I will leave that for the Minister to comment upon.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
As we have already discussed,clause 39 will ensure that local authorities provide better advice to parents to help them to make decisions about the choice of school for their child. Amendment No. 47 would require local authorities to give parents information on the availability of special schools in their area. Clearly advice to the parents of children with special needs will be a key part of the role of choice advisers, as I will outline in a moment. But it is already the case that under the special educational needs code, when local authorities make a statement, they must provide parents with a list of all primary and secondary schools and maintained special schools. In addition, they must provide parents with a list of non-maintained special schools and independent special schools that have been approved by the Secretary of State.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
Does the Minister not accept that this does not happen and that local education authorities simply do not do this?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
I certainly cannot accept that all local authorities always do not do it. A reason for having it in the special educational needs code is to make it absolutely clear in statutory guidance that that is what should happen. In circumstances where it does not, it is wrong and complaints should be made.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South & Shoreditch, Labour)
My right hon. Friend may not be aware that Mossbourne city academy in Hackney takes all children with autism as a priority. The aim within the family of schools in Hackney is that each school will take their responsibilities to children with special educational needs properly. I am sure that she would agree that that is a good model for what the Bill outlines.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
Once again my hon. Friend has demonstrated good practice with respect to academies in those circumstances.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
No, not for the moment. [Interruption.] Okay I will, although I can never guess what the hon. Lady is going to ask.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
Would the Minister clarify whether it is a responsibility for academies to take children with special needs? Is it not the case that there is no responsibility when a child has been statemented for an academy to accept him or her?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
I did not know that the hon. Lady would ask a question that we have covered already. I made it clear that academies, through their funding agreements, have to fulfil the legislation with respect to children with statements. So, yes they do have to.