Mr.
Laws: There appears to be a less serious point and a
serious point lurking among the amendments. I will start with what I
consider the less serious point, which is the name of these
institutions. I
am getting increasingly worried about the hon. Member for Bognor Regis
and Littlehampton. Previously, there was an intriguing balance on the
Conservative Benches between the progressive Conservative—the
hon. Gentleman—and the less progressive hon. Member for South
Holland and The Deepings, who perhaps represents the less liberal wing
of the Conservative party. I am sure he will not mind us saying that in
his
absence. Since
the hon. Gentleman left us, we appear to be seeing the
ultra-modernising tendencies of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton, who has come forward with some extraordinary suggestions
for renaming pupil referral units and short stay schools. I am
surprised at the suggestion to call them “schools for
alternative education”, as that sounds like the sort of
left-wing, peacenik, lovey-dovey drug-smoking stuff that the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings would be violently opposed
to. I am horrified by the thought that he might be reading this
assiduously at his
breakfast table, or over a long dinner in a couple of days’ time.
I hope he has nothing in his mouth when he reads the suggestions that
are being made. I imagined
that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton might have
thought of something more consistent with his own principles: phonic
recovery schools, perhaps, or discipline schools or short, sharp shock
schools—something of that kind. He has come up with an odd name,
but we must wait for the Minister to confirm why “prospect
school” was turned
down. I
am not sure that I particularly care what the name is—what is
important is what happens inside those institutions—but I
welcome the fact that, whatever else, these institutions will be called
something “school”. The pupil referral units are part of
the same gobbledegook of education speak, and perhaps much else,
whereby the name obscures what is going on, rather than shedding light
on it. When I was first elected MP for the Yeovil constituency, I heard
about my local pupil referral unit and was not clear about what it was
there to do. Transparency in such matters is important.
There is a
more important point, which I will touch on now. I will not return to
it during the clause stand part debate. The hon. Member for Bognor
Regis and Littlehampton also referred to the fact that these
schools—whatever they are called—have been seriously
underperforming for many years. That has been confirmed by the Ofsted
reports. It is long overdue for the Government to treat these schools
as a higher priority, and to ensure that youngsters are not encouraged
to be in them for a long period and that there are good connections
with other mainstream schools, as the Under-Secretary of State for
Children, Schools and Families mentioned. We should not write off the
youngsters in these institutions. What matters is not the name, but
what they do, and how they help youngsters to recover from the chaotic
circumstances that they were often in when they entered these
institutions.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Amendments 97 and 98 would rename pupil
referral units “schools for alternative education” and
“prospect schools” rather than “short stay
schools”. In our White Paper, we stated our intention to rename
pupil referral units. We asked for suggestions for the new name and
received more than 100. We also asked for suggestions from the
ministerial stakeholder group on behaviour and attendance and the
National Organisation for Pupil Referral Units. The name “short
stay school” was chosen because it includes the word
“school”, thus emphasising similarity with the
mainstream, rather than differences. “Short stay” offers
a broadly accurate and neutral description of what those schools do
differently from other
schools. I
appreciate that, in some cases, pupils may spend an extended period in
a pupil referral unit. Examples of that might include pupils at key
stage 4, for whom it makes sense to do their exams and complete their
schooling in a pupil referral unit, or pupils with long-term medical
needs. We expect placements to be short term in the majority of
cases. One
clear message that we received from many consultation respondents was
that they did not want the new name for pupil referral units to include
words such
as “centre” or “alternative”, which they
felt emphasised difference from the mainstream and obscured the fact
that the units are schools and the main focus is on teaching and
learning. Mr.
Simon: Is my hon. Friend saying that they are to be called
“short stay schools” because they are schools in which
pupils will ideally stay for a short
time?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: That is what it says on the tin.
“Prospect school” was suggested in the consultation
process. We thought that it was a good suggestion and investigated it
further, but, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said, four schools in
England already use “prospect” in their titles. After
consulting with those schools, we decided that using the word could
lead to confusion in the areas where the schools are
placed. Changing
the name of PRUs in legislation makes an important statement, which
sends a clear message that the Government are deeply committed to
bringing about a step change in the quality of alternative provision.
The name change marks a positive new beginning for the sector and sheds
the baggage of negative attitudes that have grown up around the term
“pupil referral unit”. As I have just said to my hon.
Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation,
Universities and Skills, “short stay school” is the most
appropriate name. I ask that the amendment be
withdrawn.
Mr.
Gibb: I take on board the Minister‘s point about
wanting the institutions to sound as similar as possible to mainstream
schools, so I agree that “school” should remain in the
title. My progressive title also had “school” in
it—school for alternative education. I am intrigued that there
seems to be a move among some schools to cease calling themselves
schools and to use the phrase “learning centre”. Let us
hope that that phase and fad will cease and “school”
remains the title of all schools, not least so they remain consistent
with the new short stay schools being
created. I
hope that we see improved quality in this sector of education, because
it is important that children in those institutions get an education,
as well as have their behavioural problems addressed. We have had a
short and fairly interesting debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 236
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
237Information
about planned and actual
expenditure
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 237,
page 139, line 14, at end
insert— ‘(1A) The Secretary
of State may direct a local authority in England that is a partner in a
Local Education Partnership (LEP) to provide information about the
acoustic quality of schools to be built or refurbished by that
LEP.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 289, in
clause 237, page 139, line 14, at
end insert ‘, including expenditure
on pupils with special educational
needs.’.
Mr.
Gibb: Clause 237 is about information about planned and
actual expenditure. Under the clause, the Secretary of State can direct
a local authority to provide information about its planned and actual
expenditure in connection with education and children’s
services. Amendment 78 would add a new subsection. The point that it
contains may seem to be an obscure one to bring to our deliberations,
but the amendment raises a specific concern that reflects wider
concerns about some of the architecture and buildings that have come
out of the Building Schools for the Future programme. Some people have
termed it “Building Schools for the Sixties”, because a
lot of the architecture is designed to reflect an approach to education
that is progressive in the pejorative
sense.
Mr.
Gibb: Well, I use “progressive” there as a
pejorative term, rather than the benign term it usually is when I use
it. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not convey any of
that to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The
Deepings. There
is genuine concern about some of the architecture being used. The
National Deaf Children’s Society has raised particular concerns
with me about the acoustics in some of the new buildings. It said in
its briefing to the Committee that open-plan teaching spaces were being
promoted without proper consideration of how to ensure high-quality
acoustics in such spaces, which is a real concern for deaf or
hearing-impaired children, and we need to address
it. Light
is also an issue. Several years ago, Sig Prais of the National
Institute of Economic and Social Research did an interesting study on
the architecture of schools in Switzerland. He concluded that some of
the old-fashioned Victorian buildings with high ceilings and ample
window space were the best environments in which children could learn,
rather than some of the buildings that were thrown up in the 1960s with
flat roofs, low ceilings and fluorescent lighting, which is very
damaging for
children. I
hope that this probing amendment will trigger the Government and those
involved in the architecture of schools looking at the specific case of
the acoustics of classrooms in new-build schools. Moreover, they should
use that as an instance in the wider issue of architecture so that we
have an evidence-based approach to school building and design, as well
as an evidence-based approach to education policy more generally. I
look forward to the Minister’s
response.
Mr.
Laws: Turning first to amendment 78, I have some sympathy
with the concerns about building design. In particular, I mentioned
yesterday—or some time this morning—a Policy Exchange
report on the school systems in Sweden, the United States and England.
I recommend that the Minister read it when he returns home to South
Dorset later
today. The
report criticises some of the developments in relation to the academies
building programme and claims—I suspect that this is accurate,
but I am happy to take an intervention if it is not—that the
flexibility and freedom given to sponsors on the design of their
buildings has been eroded over the past few years. There has been a
greater tendency to go for a standard build, often
excluding the sponsors from direct involvement in shaping the buildings
that they are in. I understand that that may be motivated by desire to
keep down the cost of some of those projects. Some academy projects
have become quite expensive, but that might also relate to the
particular sites involved. I share the
concerns of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that one
of the risks of the Government’s huge school-building
project—I dare not touch on the college-building projects at the
current time—is that we could build a lot of the same types of
building in a very short period. If we get the design of those
buildings wrong, we will end up repenting at leisure over the next 20,
30 or 40 years. We will then find that we have to spend huge sums to
fix all those
things. That
suggests that we should be very thoughtful about the design
characteristics of schools, including in respect of the details in
amendment 78. Moreover, it cautions us against having some sort of
blueprint that is in fashion at one point and rolling it out everywhere
until it is discovered to be the wrong model and replaced everywhere by
something else. A certain variety and experimentation are probably a
safeguard against getting everything wrong at the same
time. Amendment
289 is also probing and designed to explore issues relating to
expenditure on people with special educational needs. As has been
pointed out, clause 237
says: “The
Secretary of State may direct a local authority in England to provide
information about its planned and actual expenditure in connection
with— (a)
its education
functions; (b)its
children’s services
functions.” The
amendment would add a third category to the requirement in subsection
(1)(b), “expenditure
on pupils with special educational
needs.” Its
purpose will probably be obvious to the
Minister. Parents
with children who have special educational needs frequently report back
concerns about the lack of transparency and of budget that schools and
local authorities have for special educational needs. They are
concerned about how the money is allocated, which often undermines
confidence in the authority and in the ability of the parents to secure
the education that they believe their children need, particularly to
overcome SEN
problems. A
duty to provide information about SEN expenditure would be one small
step in addressing the lack of confidence in local authorities and it
would help to enable parents to hold their local authorities to account
and to ask questions about existing provision in the education budget
and future plans. I hope that the Minister, in the spirit of that
probing amendment, will comment on those
issues. 11.30
am
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I shall first speak to amendment
78. There is no need for further powers to gather information about
acoustic quality in schools. The Secretary of State has general powers
to collect information in support of his functions and the Department
has frequently conducted surveys on the condition, sufficiency and
suitability of school buildings. It would be possible to gather
information about acoustic quality under those existing
powers.
The acoustic
quality of new school buildings is covered by other legislation
including building regulations made under the powers of the Building
Act 1984. In addition, regulation 18 of the Education (School Premises)
Regulations 1999 provides that each room or other space in a school
building shall have the acoustic conditions and insulation against
disturbance by noise appropriate to its normal use. The particular
requirements of pupils with special educational needs, including those
with special hearing requirements, are catered for by the Special
Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, which provides that every
local authority must have a strategy for improving the accessibility of
schools for pupils with a disability.
As part of
the continuous review of the relevant regulations, the DCSF and the
Department for Communities and Local Government are currently reviewing
building bulletin 93, which gives guidance on compliance with acoustic
standards for schools. The two Departments are liaising with the
National Deaf Children’s Society and other stakeholders to
ensure that the needs of deaf children, those with special hearing
requirements and those with speech and language communication
difficulties are fully considered in the review. The inclusion of the
amendment would not, in my view, produce any additional improvement to
the work already being undertaken in that
area. Amendment
289 is an important proposal for the collection of financial
information from local authorities to see how they are supporting the
provision for pupils with special educational needs. It offers a
welcome opportunity to discuss the issue of funding for pupils with
special educational needs. Local authorities and schools are funded to
provide SEN services mainly through the dedicated schools grant. The
Education Act 1996 requires local authorities, schools and early years
settings to have regard to the SEN code of practice, which provides
advice on their statutory duties to identify, assess and make provision
for pupils with special educational needs. The code is clear that
schools have a statutory duty to do their best to ensure that necessary
provision is made for pupils’ special educational needs. It is
also clear that whole-school measures can be affected in addressing
some special educational needs and preventing others.
The
Department collects data on what local authorities budget to spend on
children with special educational needs and every mainstream school is
given a notional sum for SEN as part of its budget information. We also
collect outturn data on what is spent in maintained special schools and
on pupils who are supported in non-maintained special schools and
independent schools. However, as far as mainstream schools are
concerned, the way in which they use their funding to fulfil SEN
responsibilities does not necessarily entail having some staff who work
exclusively with children with SEN, while other staff work exclusively
with other children. In practice, most staff work for children with SEN
as part of their wider responsibilities. If schools were required to
account for the use of their funding for SEN purposes, they would have
to attribute a proportion of each member of staff’s time to
their SEN responsibilities. It would be likely that different schools
would estimate their SEN spending in different ways, so the information
returned to the Department would have little meaning.
However, to
ensure that they are making the best use of their resources, schools
find it helpful to be able to estimate what they are spending on each
activity to fulfil different responsibilities, and what impact that
spending is having on pupil outcomes. In May last year an interactive
resource pack was published by the Audit Commission to help schools to
determine whether their spending on children with special educational
needs offers value for money and makes real improvements to outcomes
with those children. What matters most is the impact SEN spending has
on pupil progression and outcomes. All schools should be monitoring and
evaluating the progression made by children with SEN and considering
what additional or alternative interventions might have more impact on
progress. Inclusion of the amendment would not produce meaningful or
reliable additional information to the Department’s already
comprehensive data collection. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member
for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to consider withdrawing his
amendment.
| 
