Jacqui
Smith: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that
assurance, because the whole point of the report is that the schools
commissioner should be able to identify whether the important objective
of fair access is being achieved, and to ensure that it is.
Although new clause 16 is not
undesirable, it is not necessary to table a new clause to require local
authorities to report in detail to their admission forum on the
admission arrangements of schools in their area, and on whether they
believe that those are fair and in compliance with the school
admissions code. Local authorities can already compile reports and give
the forum any advice that they consider appropriate. In addition, as
has been said, clause 38 will give admission forums the new power to
prepare and publish a report on how fairly admissions arrangements
operate in their
area. My hon. Friend
the Member for Bury, North, who, I think, supports the idea of
producing the reports, questioned the most appropriate place for it to
happen. In my view, with its wider membership and the representation of
parents as parent governors, for example, with the membership of other
members of the community who may be on admission forums, and with the
involvement of all schools, including those who are their own
admissions authorities, the potential contribution of an admission
forum may be broader, and the resulting report fuller, than if the
local authority were to do it.
The important point is that the
work is done and that the report is full. That is why regulation 2,
paragraph (2) of the School Admissions (Admission Forums) (England)
(Amendment) Regulations 2006, which have been circulated to the
Committee, includes a pretty full list of what we expect those annual
reports to contain, including
“the number and percentages
of...preferences met...
(b) the number of appeals
made...
(c) the ethnic and social mix of
pupils attending schools in the area...and the factors that affect
this; (d) the extent
to which existing and proposed admission arrangements serve the
interests of looked after children, children with disabilities and
children with special educational
needs; (e) how well
the hard to place protocol has
worked... (f)
whether primary schools are meeting their statutory duties in relation
to infant class
sizes; (g) details of
other matters that might affect how fairly admission arrangements serve
the interests of children and parents within the authority;
and (h) any
recommendation or recommendations that the forum wishes to make in
order to improve parental choice and access to education in the area of
the authority.” That is
pretty full, and in connection with the report the forum will be able
to require the local authority and any other admissions authority to
provide it with the information that it needs to carry out its
task. That was
characterised as a massive additional burden that would cause council
tax levels to rise. Given the usually measured approach of the hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I can only attribute his
considerable over-statement, which does not bear any resemblance to
what will happen, to our being just two days away from the local
elections. The large
majority of the information is already collected, for example, through
the pupil-level annual school census. We will not be placing a new
burden on schools and admissions authorities or the local authority if
they are to collect the information that I have outlined. Therefore,
the need for local authorities to be given an additional, specific
power for that purpose becomes redundant, as do the proposals in
amendment No. 212. New
clause 53 is also unnecessary. As I have already explained, clause 38
allows admissions forums to prepare and publish a report into
admissions matters in their area, and local authorities already have
the power to publish reports on that.
I hope that, given the
additional information and reassurance about that power, content and
use of that report, with which I have provided the
Committee—along with the information about the new proposals
that we are making for the constitution and membership of admissions
forums—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North will withdraw
his
amendment.
Mr.
Chaytor: I want to thank the Minister for her detailed
explanation. She has made clear her commitment to ensuring that we have
effective compliance mechanisms locally. If we did not operate within a
structure with a direct relationship between the capacity of a school
to determine its own admissions and the level of segregation in the
immediate locality—for example, schools controlling their own
admissions have far lower percentages of children on free school meals,
with special educational needs and whose first language is not
English—and were not operating and had not inherited such a high
level of segregation in our system, there would be no need to establish
the mechanisms locally. To dismiss the provisions of the clause, or
those of new clauses 16
and 53, would add a burden to the taxpayer and ignore the damaging
effects of segregated intakes in our
schools. I welcome the
emphasis that the new code of practice places on making avoidance and
elimination of social segregation a major social theme in all our
admissions policies. All schools, whatever their background, ethos or
tradition, have to take that on board, because if they do not, in many
parts of the country segregated schooling will increasingly become a
reality—although not necessarily in the constituencies
represented by members of the official Opposition—and we all
know the disastrous consequences that that can
have. Given the
Minister’s strong reassurances about her commitment to ensuring
that effective compliance mechanisms are in place, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Sarah
Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 437, in clause 38,
page 27, line 25, after ‘schools',
insert ‘, academies, city
technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the
arts'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 438, in clause 38, page 27,line 34, after
‘school', insert ‘, academy,
city technology college or city college for the technology of the
arts'.
Sarah
Teather: The amendments are intended to probe the
Government’s definition of “maintained schools”.
Under clause 5(6) and clause 30, the definition does not include
academies or city technology colleges. However, when the Minister was
discussing school improvement partners, she described how SIPs would be
provided by the relevant maintaining authority, which, in that case,
was the Secretary of
State. The amendments
were tabled to test whether the admission forum has the power to
scrutinise and publish reports on academies and city technology
colleges and request the relevant information from those
schools.
Jacqui
Smith: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady.
Academies, through their funding arrangements, are required to comply
with admissions legislation and the school admissions code. That means
that academies must provide the admission forum with any information
that it wishes to include in its report. In the case of CTCs, most have
either become academies or are in the process of doing so. We are happy
for admission forums to include in their reports the impact that CTCs
have on the admissions in their areas. On that basis, I hope that the
hon. Lady feels suitably
reassured.
Sarah
Teather: On a point of clarification, the Minister said
that she is happy for CTCs to be included, but will there be a
requirement for them to co-operate?
Jacqui
Smith: I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady means by a
requirement to co-operate. I was clear that academies and, I think,
CTCs, where they exist, are members of admission forums. An admission
forum’s report will detail the admissions arrangements of
academies and CTCs. Academies, because of their funding agreements,
will have to provide information to the admission forums. If it was
necessary, or there was a difficulty with getting information from a
CTC, we would be willing to obtain any information that an admission
forum needed if it was not
forthcoming.
Sarah
Teather: I thank the Minister for putting those aspects on
record, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
38 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
39Support
for parental
preferences
Mr.
Chaytor: I beg to move amendment No. 446, in clause 39,
page 28, line 41, leave out first ‘of' and insert ‘and
their'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 447, in clause 39, page 28,line 42, leave out
‘them' and insert
‘parents'.
Mr.
Chaytor: 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: 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. 6.45
pm
Mr.
Chaytor: I am grateful for that clarification, and I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in clause 39, page
28, line 43, at end add ‘, such
advice to include full information regarding the provision of special
schools available in the geographical
area.'.
The
Chairman: 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;'.
| 
