Mr.
Hayes: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for faith
schools, which I strongly support. It is the clarity of purpose that
differentiates faith schools and many others that is summed up by their
ethos and we should be loth to lose it, as it benefits large numbers of
children, as I hope my hon. Friend
agrees. 12.30
pm
Mr.
Leigh: Yes. It is always worth sharing one’s
experience. The school that my son attends, because it is a Catholic
school in inner London, attracts children of a huge range of
nationalities and many children with great difficulties. Being
Catholic, the children are Portuguese, Spanish, Italian or French and
come from all sorts of different social groups. The first language of
many is not English, but the school has extraordinary success in
binding them together and achieving first-rate academic
results. The school is
oversubscribed: people want to get their children in to it. That is not
because it receives more money, or because it particularly wants to
attract middle-class children. Interestingly, however, middle-class
people are happy to get their children into the school. If one is
concerned about state education in the cities one should be concerned
about creating schools that all types of people want to go to. The
school is a success because of its ethos of love, discipline, faith and
traditional values. That very delicate mixture has been nurtured over
many years by dedicated teachers and head teachers.
That school and many others
like it want to get on with the job that they know best. They are not
failing or coasting; they get good academic results and they do not
want somebody appointed by an local education authority to come in and
interfere in the way in which they run themselves—the Minister
must be aware of that concern. If schools are failing or coasting or
there is a problem, fair enough, there is a role for external advisers.
However, those schools already have external
advisers.
Meg
Hillier (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op): I am
puzzled by the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Is he suggesting that
a head teacher or chair of governors of a different faith or
denomination might not be good for a school? I can give him many
examples of good people coming in to help faith schools who are of
other faiths or of none. There seems to be a contradiction in what he
says.
Mr.
Leigh: I am surprised by that intervention. I said for
that very reason that this is a probing amendment. I do not suggest
that the Committee accept my amendment and therefore insist that a
school improvement partner of a faith school be of the same
denomination. I made it clear that it is perfectly possible for somebody
to give a school good advice without being of the same denomination. We
merely want to ensure that the SIP appointed to a faith school that
promotes family and traditional values is broadly sympathetic to the
ethos of that school. He or she does not need to be of the same
denomination. Above
all, the SIP appointed must not have a hidden agenda. I do not suggest
that everybody should approve of faith schools—I know that many
people do not like them—or that anybody should be forced to go
to a school that has or does not have uniforms, or one that is or is
not progressive. I am in favour of a rich mixture of schools. All that
I am saying is that, particularly in difficult areas, there are schools
that are extremely popular with parents and we should let them get on
with the job that they know best. I hope that the Minister will
reassure the Committee that SIPs will approach faith schools with a
positive attitude of mind, so as to ensure that the best go on getting
better and there is no attack on those excellent
schools.
Sarah
Teather: I accept that the amendment is probing.
Nevertheless, its broad thrust is that all SIPs should be of the same
religion or denomination as the school.
To try to define
“sympathetic” is deeply unhelpful. As the hon. Member for
Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) mentioned, not all teachers
or head teachers belong to the same denomination or faith as their
school, and we should not require them to do so. Concern was expressed
in earlier sittings about social divisions and the need to ensure that
all schools that teach in the context of a particular faith understand
the wider social context in which they exist. It is desirable to have
teachers in all schools who do not necessarily represent a particular
faith or
denomination. We
should think about what we mean when we talk about a particular
denomination. When we say a person is a Catholic, do we mean that they
must have been baptised a Catholic, that they have taken their first
holy communion, that they have been confirmed, or that they are
practising? How Catholic do they need to be? Are we talking Opus Dei,
or à la carte, like the majority of practising
Catholics?
Mr.
Clappison: The hon. Lady has not yet mentioned the word
“ethos”, which was key to argument made by my hon. Friend
the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I think that he was asking
that the person in question be sympathetic to the ethos of the
school.
Sarah
Teather: If the hon. Gentleman sits tight, I shall get to
the word “ethos”
shortly. There are
various ethoi in the Church of England. An Anglo-Catholic, someone with
an evangelical approach, and a person with a more Protestant
understanding of the Church of England’s teachings may have
different views on the sacrament or the interpretation of biblical
texts that would dramatically change the ethos of their approach to
their faith and,
in that context, their understanding and practice of their faith in
education. It is impractical to deal with
everything. Not all
lessons in faith schools are taught in the context of religion. It is
difficult to believe that maths lessons would be dominated by faith or
religious teaching. Perhaps in Reg Vardy’s schools biology might
be dominated by particular teachings, but on the whole religion arises
in assemblies or in lessons in other subjects on the curriculum. This
amendment is deeply unhelpful and needs to be
rejected.
Mr.
Clappison: I join in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr.
Chope. I am
sympathetic to the amendment, which my hon. Friend the Member for
Gainsborough tabled in a characteristically moderate and constructive
way. I am slightly surprised by the response of the Liberal Democrat
spokesman, because there seemed to be a vigour and vim in her remarks
that did not quite catch the mood and spirit of the amendment as my
hon. Friend intended
it. I agree with my
hon. Friend that religious schools generally perform well. Schools of
denominations of the Christian religions and of other religions perform
well and are appreciated by parents. That is not a universal trait, but
it seems to be a tendency. One of key factors in the appreciation of
those schools by parents and in their success is the ethos that a
religion or denomination helps to establish. I should have thought that
there was a great deal of common sense in my hon. Friend’s
approach, which is that the school improvement partner should at least
be sympathetic to the denomination or religion in question. I should
have thought that such an SIP would, by virtue of their sympathy, have
a better understanding of the ethos and be in a stronger position to
make a constructive criticism of the school if one were needed and, if
necessary, could challenge its performance in living up to its ethos. I
should have thought that that was a common sense approach. I should
also think that parents could have more confidence in a person of such
a nature and that the school and its governors would be more likely to
listen to them. The
amendment was tabled in a moderate and attractive way and I hope that
the Minister will seek to respond to it as such, not in the rather
knee-jerk way that the Liberal Democrat spokesman
responded.
Mrs.
Dorries: It is no secret that I am an advocate of faith
schools. I was delighted to read in The Times recently that the
UK is to have its first Hindu school. Whenever and wherever possible, I
have educated my children in faith schools, so I can understand the
desire of Hindu parents who felt the need for such a community faith
school where they could education their children. One of the reasons I
support the Bill wholeheartedly is that it will allow groups of
parents, such as those voicing the need for the Hindu school, to have a
voice, and it will enable and empower such parents to establish faith
schools with a greater ease than before.
My hon. Friend the Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made the case for SIPs who have
expertise or knowledge in special needs. In particular, he spoke about
a special needs child learning to read, stressing that only a teacher
with a vocation and infinite patience would have the necessary
sensitivity and deep understanding. The same argument must be applied
to faith schools. Spirituality is the essence of all faith in whichever
God. It requires a deep understanding and openness, if not
sensitivity. For
those who do not have faith, the concept is difficult to understand. It
is so difficult that, as the hon. Member for Brent, East has just
demonstrated admirably, a lack of understanding can create fear that
can cause people to criticise or ridicule those who have faith. I am
not talking about chav ridicule; I am referring to academic ridicule. I
have heard many academics be condemnatory and derisory about faith and
faith schools. Faith
schools do not exist to be insular or inward-looking, which are
criticisms often levied at them. Their purpose is to protect the young,
who are moving forward in faith, and to help one generation pass to the
next the culture and religion of that particular group. Statistics show
that, quite often, faith schools have better academic outcomes than
non-faith
schools—
The
Chairman: Order. I have given the hon. Lady a lot of
latitude. The amendment is about school improvement partners in faith
schools, not faith schools
generally.
Mrs.
Dorries: I support the amendment to ensure SIPs who will
have an understanding of the deep spirituality and objectives and aims
of faith schools. I am worried that clause 5 might be used as a tool to
limit spirituality and how it is taught in faith schools by pairing
those schools with SIPs who do not understand or empathise with their
aims. The Minister said that 26 SIPs have been allocated in 27
authorities.
Jacqui
Smith: indicated
dissent.
Mrs.
Dorries: I wrote it down as it was said—perhaps it
could be checked. Which of those SIPs were allocated to faith schools?
Has an assessment been made of the impact of SIPs on faith schools and
on how they will work with faith schools? Will the Minister assure us
that the ethos of faith schools and the way in which they operate and
imbue children with their spirituality, religion and culture will not
be affected by the allocation of SIPs who do not share that faith,
understanding or
spirituality?
Jacqui
Smith: I shall respond to the amendment in the spirit in
which it was tabled. Even the has the hon. Member for Gainsborough
acknowledged that strict interpretation of the amendment, which would
impose a narrow requirement on local authorities, would limit the range
of SIPs that could be allocated to a particular school. It would go
against some of the arguments about flexibility that were made to a
previous group of amendments. However, I recognise
that the hon. Gentleman tabled the amendment as a means to probe the
relationship between SIPs and faith
schools. I can give at
least some reassurance. First, diversity has always been a major
feature of the English school system, and the present Government, far
from seeking to iron out that diversity, are keen to develop and make
use of it for the benefit of all pupils. That is part of what we hope
to achieve through the Bill. We expect all SIPs, whatever their
professional backgrounds and personal convictions, to understand that
and the way in which it is represented in the school
system. 12.45
pm We expect all
school improvement partners in their work to be responsive to the
individual circumstances and characteristics, including religious
characteristics, of the schools with which they work. The national
assessment for people who seek accreditation as SIPs, about which we
have talked when debating previous groups of amendments, stresses that
expectation. It is designed to withhold accreditation from anyone who
might work with a school without taking account of its ethos and other
features, and it is therefore a key requirement of a SIP that he or she
should be responsive to the ethos and context of schools of any
type. At national
level the Department has worked with the representative organisations
of faith schools to make sure that Government policy developments take
account of their concerns and to keep them abreast of developments. For
example, my officials have discussed SIPs with the National Society for
Promoting Religious Education, which is the education body for Church
of England maintained schools, and with the Catholic Education Service.
SIPs and other aspects of the “new relationship with
schools” programme will be discussed at a meeting of the
consultative group that we convene for representatives of all faith
groups. Those links
ensure general understanding between the faith organisations and the
Government, but of course for the SIP programme there is a specific
additional benefit: we are able to encourage faith organisations to
recommend that head teachers of faith schools apply for SIP
accreditation. That led the Catholic Education Service, for example, to
issue a note about SIP accreditation in one of its regular
communications with head teachers of Roman Catholic schools. I hope
that that will ensure the involvement of more high-quality head
teachers and more head teachers who are likely to have first-hand
understanding of the characteristics of faith
schools. We
are asking local authorities, in their deployment and management of
SIPs, to pay attention to the preferences as well as the needs of
individual schools. In some cases those preferences may relate to
SIPs’ religious beliefs, although as I explained in the debate
on amendments Nos. 61 and 63 the choice of a school improvement partner
for a school rests ultimately with the school’s maintaining
authority, because the SIP is part of the school’s formal
external accountability mechanism. Therefore, although discussion is
appropriate, a veto or a choice by a school would not
be.
| 
