Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham (Bishops (affiliation)) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 12 July 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HL) on Education and Inspections Bill.


Education and Inspections Bill

I support the amendments in this group, particularly the probing Amendments Nos. 33 and 35, and I shall refer also to Amendment No. 28. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was concerned over the grouping and not being sure about whether to jump up. So, I have seized this opportunity of jumping up now to say that a school improvement partner has an important role in a school—and that is obvious. But, if the person appointed is not in sympathy with the character, ethos, or purpose of the school, the advice and support that they offer will not be as effective as it should be. It may even be counterproductive and, in a worst-case scenario, could be disruptive or even destructive. Local education authorities could make a mismatch and misjudgment—after all, they are only human. However, if, as Amendment No. 28 proposes, the governing body of a school made the appointment, that would be less likely. We on these Benches support the thrust of the amendments.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c756 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Education Children Care homes Accountability Detainees Costs Custody Leisure Governing bodies Inspections Migrants Headteachers Local government Mental illness Pupil exclusions Standards Schools Special educational needs Training Young offenders Sports
Legislation
Education and Inspections Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk