---

Education and Inspections Bill

moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 16, at end insert ““, and ““(c) ensuring that the schools in its area contribute to social inclusion and community cohesion, especially in areas of economic and social disadvantage.”””” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 70 and 80. Amendment No. 6 raises the issue of schools, local education authorities and community cohesion. We spent a long time in Committee discussing these issues, in a debate that ranged widely over parental choice and the concept of community schools—both in the sense that we have just discussed in Amendment No. 4, and in that a school provides a location for many community services. There may be, on the same site, not just a secondary school but a pre-school, children’s clinics, extended after-school activities, adult education and even, sometimes, old people’s day centres. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, questioned whether the amendment that we have brought back as Amendment No. 6 is in the right place, as Section 14 of the 1996 Act is about establishing new schools. I will return to that in a moment. However, much of this Bill is also about establishing new foundation schools, and it is perfectly viable that we should do so. The noble Lords, Lord Gould and Lord Skidelsky, questioned whether the term community, in its old-fashioned, geographical sense, had any meaning these days, but many others argued that, in some areas of the country at least, community and a sense of belonging are important. I do not propose to repeat the debate. We can justify using the term ““community cohesion””, which is used in Clause 33(6), which provides that the board of governors of foundation and community schools, "““shall, in carrying out its functions in relation to the school, promote community cohesion””." In his winding up speech, the Minister drew attention to the draft regulations and statutory instruments on competitions to replace failing schools with foundation schools. They require those proposing new schools to provide, "““a description of what the proposals are intended to deliver in terms of community cohesion””," and, "““the objectives which the promoters intend to set to further the aims of inclusiveness and partnership working””.""The Minister said that also to be taken into account should be, first,""““the extent to which, and how satisfactorily in the circumstances of the community, the proposals [for new schools] address the need to promote community cohesion””," and, secondly, "““the extent to which the proposals take account of the needs of families and the wider community””.—[Official Report, 5/7/06; col. 310.]" I make no apologies for bringing back the issue of community cohesion. In Amendments Nos. 6 and 70, we are arguing that this obligation—which is in the Bill in relation to foundations for trust schools and in the regulations in relation to local authorities and the adjudicator taking decisions on school closures and competitions—should be in the Bill explicitly for local education authorities. If Section 14 of the Education Act 1996 is about establishing new schools, and local education authorities are being asked to think about diversity and parent choice, they should be thinking also about community cohesion. Why do we put such emphasis on community cohesion? I can do no better than quote the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in Committee: "““We must have some regard to a school within a community framework, particularly where the community is socially and economically disadvantaged. As schools increasingly become places for the extended school day—where there are recreational facilities for the community, increased participation and a focus for lifelong learning—I see them becoming valued and important centres of community life. That is especially true in poorer communities, where people do not go outside their community much””.—[Official Report, 5/7/06; col. 298.]" He described some communities as ““housing deserts””. We know very well that these days pubs, post offices and shops are closing on housing estates. They are becoming housing deserts. If we close schools as well, there is no locus for that community to cohere around, which is why we are anxious to see community cohesion in the Bill. It is also significant that the Minister argued that the early part of the Bill places, "““new duties on local authorities to ensure fair access to educational opportunity and to promote the fulfilment of every child’s potential in addition to the existing duty to promote high standards. We want to ensure that … every child achieves their full potential, and nothing we can do will help schools better to promote social and community cohesion in their work than by succeeding in eliminating education inequalities based on class and background. We believe that we achieve that purpose in the Bill.””.—[Official Report, 5/5/06; col. 310.]" But whereas the Childcare Act has written into it the aim of reducing educational inequalities, that is not so in this Bill. We may bring back at Third Reading an alternative amendment because the Bill does not place a specific duty on local authorities to improve wellbeing and reduce inequalities. If it did, we might not have tabled this amendment, but it does not and we therefore propose that a duty to promote social inclusion and community cohesion should be written into the Bill, at this point for local authorities and in Clause 40 for admission forums. Amendment No. 70 deals with the same issue as it relates to admission forums. Just as we think it important that local authorities should take an overall view of the promotion of social inclusion within their areas, so it is even more important that admission forums—in a sense the specialised agencies within local education authorities now dealing with admissions—should be aware and recognisant of exactly the same issues. Schools need to be a vibrant part of their community. Letting them wither on the vine can kill a whole community. It is important that those dealing with schools admissions are aware of the role they play in helping communities to continue to thrive. Amendment No. 80 tackles a somewhat different area of disadvantage and comes at it from a different angle. Here we are talking about schools forums, which are concerned with the distribution of money that is allocated to a local authority under its dedicated schools budget. The job of schools forums is to share out that money between different schools. In the calculations made on how much government money should be spent by each local education authority at the local level, weighting is given to various indices of disadvantage such as the number of children on free school meals and the number deemed to have special educational needs of one sort or another. Local education authorities in areas of greater disadvantage receive relatively more funding than do those in areas perceived to be advantageous. But whether those resources are passed through to the schools is a matter for schools forums. There is a question about whether they too use a weighting formula to give schools with a large number of disadvantaged kids their ““fair share”” of the resources. In many authorities, this does not happen. Money is to an extent allocated on a per-pupil basis rather than weighted towards the disadvantaged, or where weight is given to the disadvantaged it is not the full weighting given to such disadvantage in the government formula itself. Members on these Benches feel strongly that the schools which need the extra resources are the ones in areas of disadvantage. It is precisely in these schools that one wants to see extra teachers in the classroom. These children should be taught in small groups and often need individual attention. All this demands more resources because you need more people—and that costs a lot more money. We feel it is right that where local authorities receive extra resources to help them cope with disadvantage, they are channelled towards the schools which need them. Amendment No. 80 is designed to influence schools forums into doing precisely that. I beg to move.