 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Education and Inspections Bill |
Education and Inspections Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Standing Committee ETuesday 2 May 2006(Afternoon)[Part II][Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]Education and Inspections Bill[Continuation from column 638]8
pm On
resuming—
Jacqui
Smith: May I say what a pleasure it is to be back after
our snack break? I have a suspicion, however, that the hon. Member for
South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who is not yet here, will
have fitted in more than a snack.
Moving away from our digestion,
I remind hon. Members that before the suspension I was, I hope,
reassuring them about the provisions already in the special educational
needs code of practice which require a list of schools, including
special schools, in an area to be brought to the attention of parents
during the statementing
process. I intended to
talk about the fact that the guidance to local authorities on the
provision of choice advisers already states that such advisers will be
expected to have an understanding of special needs policy and provision
in the area for children with special educational needs. Advisers will
also be expected to draw on the knowledge and expertise of local parent
partnership services in providing advice to parents. I hope that my
comments reassure hon. Members that we are clear that choice advisers
have an important role in respect of children with special educational
needs and that we have made that clear in the choice advice
guidance. Amendment
No. 192 relates to monitoring and quality assurance of the work of
choice advisers. We have already made provision for that through the
choice advice support and quality assurance network, which will be
operated by the voluntary and community sector. That network is
external to and independent of local authorities and will have a key
role in ensuring the impartiality of the advice given by choice
advisers. It will examine the quality of what is
offered. In addition
to that work, we plan to contract for formal external evaluation of
choice advice. That evaluation is likely to focus on issues including
the effectiveness of choice advice delivery and operations; the
effectiveness of our measures to ensure independence of choice advice;
the impact of local authority and/or school performance management
arrangements on choice advisers; parental perception of the quality of
that advice; and the impact of the
advice on admissions patterns for disadvantaged children and on social
mobility. With regard
to amendment No. 388, a key element of providing choice advisers for
parents will be ensuring that the individuals appointed receive full
training to enable them to provide the advice that parents need. I can
assure the Committee that SEN and disability legislation, along with
admissions law, the school admissions code and other equality
legislation, will be part of that training. This is a broader
requirement than the amendment proposes and will also cover
schools’ own descriptions of what they offer contained in the
online school profile, their ethos and any special facilities,
including those for children with special educational needs and
disabled children. New
clause 46 and amendment No. 387 relate to professional standards for
teachers. The Secretary of State already has the power to set
professional standards for teachers and does so in secondary
legislation and associated guidance. There is no need to set out
specific standards in primary legislation, but I assure hon. Members
that the current standards for teachers are under review. It is
proposed that, once revised, they will include a standard that requires
teachers to know and comply with current legislation on the well-being
of children and young people, a standard that requires teachers to know
and understand the role of others when dealing with children who have
special educational needs and/or disabilities and a standard that
requires teachers to communicate effectively with parents and carers.
That provision, too, will be stronger than the amendment, which talks
only about people
demonstrating “an
understanding of special educational needs and disability
legislation”. I hope that
I have reassured hon. Members on the amendments and that they will not
press
them.
Mr.
Gibb: I am grateful for that response from the Minister
and I am reassured by some things. The external evaluation for choice
advisers is a useful measure to ensure that the quality of advice being
given is good. I am also reassured by what she had to say about the
training of choice advisers and by her comments regarding standards for
teachers. I understand why they are set out in secondary legislation,
but in this Committee we can only table amendments to primary
legislation. I was reassured by her mention of the current positions
under review, and I was content with what she had to say about the new
words concerning professional standards in relation to children with
special educational needs and disabilities.
However, I am not yet
convinced by the Minister’s response concerning the requirement
in amendment No. 47 that choice advisers give full information
regarding the provision of special schools available in the
geographical area. Committee members have seen too many examples of
parents being denied this information. It will send a clear message if
we include in the Bill the provisions in amendment No. 47. I was
particularly struck by the real-life experience outlined by my hon.
Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries). In light of
that, and other experiences
from outside the House of which I have been made aware, I would like to
press the amendment to a
Division. Question
put, That the amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
14.
Division
No.
20] AYESNOESQuestion
accordingly negatived.
Clause 39 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
The
Chairman: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for
Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) to move amendment No. 204, I should apologise
to the hon. Member for Bury, North for the fact that amendment No. 448,
in his name, has been left off the amendment paper in error. In any
event, the amendment has not been selected.
Clause 40Prohibition
on
interviews Mr.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): I beg to move amendment
No. 204, in clause 40, page 29, line 4, after ‘school',
insert ‘(except a school to which
this section does not
apply)'.
Amendment
No. 213, in clause 40, page 29, line 5, after ‘interview',
insert ‘or written
test'. Amendment No.
436, in clause 40, page 29, line 5, after ‘interview',
insert ‘(whether face to face or by
telephone)'. Amendment
No. 214, in clause 40, page 29, line 6, after ‘interview',
insert ‘or written
test'. Amendment No.
48, in clause 40, page 29, line 8, at end
insert— ‘(1A) If the
maintained school is one which has been designated as a school having a
religious character in accordance with section 69, subsection (1) does
not apply in relation to any interview intended to assess religious
commitment and religious
practice.'. Amendment
No. 49, in clause 40, page 29, line 8, at end
insert— ‘(1A) Subsection (1)
does not apply in relation to any interview conducted to assess
intended compliance with a home school contract.'.
Amendment No. 369, in clause 40,
page 29, line 12, at end
insert— ‘(2A) If the
maintained school is of a religious character and preference is given
to applicants for admission to that school on the basis of the
religious practice of the pupil, then subsection (1) does not apply in
relation to any interview intended to assess the suitability of the
applicant for such a
school.'. Amendment
No. 406, in clause 40, page 29, line 15, at end insert
‘interview,'. Amendment
No. 208, in clause 40, page 29, line 18, at end
insert— ‘(3A) Subsection (1)
does not apply to any interview conducted in connection with the
admission of pupils to the school for secondary education suitable to
the requirements of pupils who are over compulsory school
age.'. Amendment
No. 205, in clause 40, page 29, line 20, at end
add— ‘(5) This section does
not apply to a foundation, voluntary-aided or voluntary-controlled
school which has been designated by the Secretary of State under
section 69 as a school having a religious
character.'. Amendment
No. 215, in clause 40, page 29, line 20, at end
add— ‘(2) In section 482
(academies) of EA 1996, in subsection
(2)— (a) omit
“and” at the end of paragraph (a),
and (b) after paragraph (b)
insert “and (c) does not
have admission arrangements which require or authorise any interview
with an applicant for admission to the academy or his parents, where
the interview is to be taken into account (to any extent) in
determining whether the applicant is to be admitted to the
academy”.'. Clause
stand part. New clause
9—Freedom to
interview— ‘A maintained
school shall have complete freedom to interview candidates for
admission at its absolute discretion, including in cases where the
interview plays a part in deciding whether the candidate is to be
admitted to the school.'.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 3 May 2006 |