Clause 20
Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister, Children, Schools and Families; East Worthing and Shoreham, Conservative)
We were delighted to hear that because, as we have pointed out, we had not had a Labour Minister or MP down there for some time—I am not trying to be critical—although we used to when the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole I started doing the MPs’ question time at the children’s request. It was great to hear. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West was appreciated and that he enjoyed it as well because it is always extraordinary. That is entirely out of order, Mr. Williams, because it is not the question in hand.
There are two groups of pupils for whom special attention and recognition by a key member of staff is essential. The group germane to the Bill are looked-after children. Clause 20 includes designating a member of staff to be the key link for looked-after children. My problem is that subsection (1) refers only to
“a member of the staff at the school”
being the designated person. The intention and direction of the clause is right but it is not good enough because the designated person could be a school caretaker, a games assistant or somebody like that—perfectly worthy individuals though they may be. To take the problems seriously, we think that a properly qualified member of the teaching staff must become the designated person. It needs to be somebody who understands the educational requirements of that child, who can communicate with other teachers, the head teacher and governors on an equal basis and who has authority.
Children in the care system obviously have particular educational needs. As we have heard from the statistics that have been bandied about, they are much more likely to do badly at school, not least because of the lack of continuity in their education. There are also problems with the image of looked-after children’s poor achievement and outcomes, so some schools would prefer not to have them because it may bring down their averages. Those are considerations that looked-after children have to face. It is therefore absolutely right that special provisions be made by a school to ensure that the special needs of looked-after children are recognised and taken on board at the highest level within those schools.
That may mean that the school must chase the responsible social worker, if that responsible social worker is not performing the role of a “pushy parent” that I would like to see them play. A child who happens to be in the care system is entitled to no lesser degree of attention from the responsible person or body, which could be a social worker, as he or she would get from a responsible parent. That could mean turning up to parents evenings demanding to know why the child is lagging behind, for example, or expressing concerns about bullying or liaising with the school on a whole host of matters. Clearly, because of the pressures on social workers, which we have previously discussed, a social worker may not be in a position to play as active a role in overseeing a child’s education as one might like.
I have mentioned innovative authorities such as Barnet that have introduced a buddy system, whereby an officer of the authority will buddy up with a looked-after child. One of their roles will be to look at their school report and to monitor their educational progress and, if necessary, ring up the school and say “What is going wrong here?” It would be helpful if there is a designated teacher who will be their first point of call, be that for a social worker or an extended family member whom one wants to encourage to have an interest in the child’s progress.
Therefore, the clause is to be welcomed, but it needs to be beefed up, hence amendment No. 17 states that a member of the teaching staff must be the designated person. However, the amendment goes further: the second part of it would provide for a responsible governor. The measure applies to young carers and many of us have argued for it before. Recognising the teacher so that they feel that they have the clout to argue the case for looked-after children would be greatly improved and enhanced by introducing a separate, responsible governor, someone other than the teacher—as it stands the designated person could be the teaching representative on the governing body—to oversee the provisions for looked-after children. They would be the line manager, as it were, for the designated teacher. That would send out a clear signal to schools that the special requirements of looked-after children, which result from the fact that educational outcomes for looked-after children have been a scandal for too many years, are a priority and that schools need to have a structure in place that can cope with that and make it a reality. Amendment No. 17 would ensure that a properly qualified teacher, in partnership with a governor, are directly responsible for overseeing the fortunes of children in the care system who attend their schools.
Amendment No. 18 specifies that there should also be a responsibility for both those individuals to report
“the educational progress to the foster carer or other appropriate carer”.
Another flaw in the system is that, too often, it is difficult to get information out of the school on how a child is actually doing, particularly foster carers. If a foster carer is doing his or her job properly, as the vast majority of them fortunately do, and if we expect a foster carer to be as close to a natural parent as possible and to play the role of a birth parent, which could include being a “pushy parent” when it comes to asking questions about whether a child is doing well at school, we should ensure that they automatically have an entitlement to know about the performance of the child at school, receive reports and hold a conversation with the relevant teachers or whoever on an established basis, so that they are fully informed about the child’s school progress. They will then be able to ask all the right questions. At the moment that does not happen in many cases.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 would require that there be designated teachers who know about the requirements of looked-after children, a governor to oversee that and that foster carers should have access to educational information about the child. They would then be able to ensure that they were doing well and ask the right questions if they were not. Such requirements would add some real beef to the well intentioned clause. They would make its provisions a reality rather than the wish list that they might become. I have some sympathy for the amendments that are being advocated by the Liberal Democrats in a similar vein. On that basis, I commend amendments Nos. 17 and 18 to the Committee.