Proceeding contribution from Baroness Buscombe (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 5 July 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Education and Inspections Bill.
Education and Inspections Bill
moved Amendment No. 21: Page 2, line 37, at end insert- ““( ) Where a local education authority in England receive representations from parents requesting the publication of a notice under section 7 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, and the local education authority decide to take action other than publishing a notice under that section, the statement under subsection (1)(b) must include their reasons for not publishing the notice.”” The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 67. Amendment No. 21 would ensure that, where a local authority received representations from parents requesting the publication of a notice inviting proposals from outside the local authority for a new school and then decided not to publish the notice, it would have to state why it was doing so. This is, in part, a probing amendment but, were it to be accepted, which I believe it could be, it would not intrude on a local authority’s right to not publish a notice. However, it would ensure that parents were entitled to an explanation when their proposals were not considered or published. The amendment would add no huge burden to local authorities; rather, it would ensure transparency in the decision-making process. Where a parent’s proposal had been refused, surely the local authority would have logged a reason for that decision as a matter of course. I am sure that the Minister will recall the text of the regulatory impact assessment, which states that some authorities, "““tend to regard community schools as ‘their’ schools and to regard other categories of schools as being outside the local family of schools””." It is my view that no school is greater than the sum of its parts: the pupils, parents and teachers. A clear priority set out in the White Paper is the voice of the parent. A whole chapter is dedicated to parents driving improvement. The amendment would ensure that no parents’ views could be ignored or not acted on in any way. Amendment No. 67 would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe minimum conditions for the schools in the area of a local authority. Where the authority failed to meet those minimum standards, it would be forced to publish an invitation for proposals for the establishment of a new foundation, voluntary or foundation special school. Such conditions could include a minimum proportion of self-governing schools or refer to purely academic considerations. It is very important that failing local authorities take decisive action to remedy that. When large numbers of schools are failing in an area, it is essential that new providers are allowed to come into the system, bringing with them a different ethos, and in so doing, driving the improvement in school standards. Too many schools currently under-perform. The National Audit Office has found that as of July 2005 there were 1,557 poorly performing schools in England, representing 4 per cent of the primary schools and 23 per cent of secondary schools. That is far too high. These schools educate 980,000 pupils, or 13 per cent of the school population. Of schools in special measures, less than 10 per cent recover within 12 months. Individual cases point to local authorities with unacceptably low levels of performance. Take Knowsley, the authority which has the worst value added school, and where only 25.5 per cent of pupils achieve five or more good GCSEs, including English and mathematics. In 20 local authorities fewer than one-third achieve this level. Consider also Nottingham city, where more than one-quarter of pupils fail to achieve even five or more GCSEs at A* to G when English and maths are included. We on these Benches cannot be alone in thinking that when local authorities languish at the bottom of performance tables they should take decisive action to tackle this. I seem to recall the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, saying earlier that that is the case. One should not allow these schools to languish for too long. It would be inappropriate for local authoritiesto establish new community schools in such circumstances, as they have demonstrated their unfitness for the challenge. The amendment would ensure that local authorities are truly the proactive commissioners of successful education rather than allowing them the possibility to be the passive providers of coasting schools. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 684 c349-50
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Access Disability Children Assessments Admissions Discipline Community development Community schools Governing bodies Faith schools Foundation schools Local government Pupil exclusions Local education authorities Pupils Standards Special educational needs School choice Secondary education Social services Academies Trust schools
- Legislation
- Education and Inspections Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 23:23:42 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335398
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335398
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335398