Category: Education

Tom Hunt – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Funding for Education

The parliamentary question asked by Tom Hunt, the Conservative MP for Ipswich, in the House of Commons on 20 December 2022.

Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)

What steps he is taking to increase funding for the education sector.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)

At spending review 2021, the Department for Education was allocated a total of £87 billion, providing a cash increase to our education system of about £18 billion by 2024-25. Young people and adults benefited from the biggest long-term settlement for post-16 education in England since 2015. Of course, at the recent autumn statement, an additional cash increase of £2 billion was provided for both 2023-24 and 2024-25.

Tom Hunt

There have been significant improvements in special educational needs and disabilities provision in Ipswich in the last few years. Just last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), was at the Sir Bobby Robson School, which has 66 new places. Suffolk has had 1,000 new SEND places since 2019, and all of that is because of the investment that my right hon. Friend just mentioned. However, it is ever so slightly frustrating that Suffolk is still unfairly funded compared with other areas, including not just London but Norfolk, where a SEND pupil will get £99 more per head than those in Suffolk. I want young people with SEND in Norfolk to have every chance, but there is no reason why young and vulnerable people in Suffolk and Ipswich should get any less funding and investment. Will he commit to reviewing the bizarre quirk that means that Suffolk SEND kids get less than kids elsewhere?

John Glen

My hon. Friend is somewhat of an expert in the subject. I agree that it is critical that we get it right. Decisions on the distribution of high-needs funding are a matter for the Department for Education, but I reassure him that, as a result of the additional funding announced at the autumn statement, Suffolk’s high-needs funding is increasing by 11% per pupil in 2023-24 compared with this year. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who has responsibility for children, families and wellbeing, will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to describe and discuss the different mechanisms of allocation and, indeed, how the high-needs formula works across different local authorities.

Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)

A merry Christmas to everybody when it comes. What steps is the Minister taking to review further education funding for people with disabilities? It is very important that people have equal opportunities across the United Kingdom and that our education system has inclusion at its core.

John Glen

I completely agree with the hon. Lady, and I am working with colleagues in different Departments looking at the challenges to help people back into the workplace. It is particularly difficult when people need support for such a range of needs and conditions. We must treat everyone as an individual and be ever more creative in the solutions that we bring forward. I look forward to working with her and colleagues in Government to try to assist in improving the situation.

21/12/2022
Nick Gibb – 2022 Statement on School Rebuilding

The statement made by Nick Gibb, the Minister of State at the Department for Education, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the School System and Student Finance (Baroness Barran) has made the following statement.

The Department for Education has announced the next 239 schools to be provisionally selected for the school rebuilding programme and has also confirmed schools, high needs and early years revenue funding allocations for 2023-24 across England.

The school rebuilding programme was launched in June 2020 and will rebuild or significantly refurbish buildings at 500 schools and sixth form colleges over the next decade. Including the 161 projects previously announced, this announcement means that 400 schools have now been selected for the programme. Projects will enter delivery at a rate of approximately 50 per year, and will transform the educational environment for hundreds of thousands of children in the poorest condition schools.

To ensure we are delivering the greatest improvement to the school estate, each school in the programme has been selected from nominations based on the condition and safety of its buildings. Selected schools include primary, secondary and special schools and sixth form colleges.

Construction of new buildings at some of the previously announced schools is already underway, with a number of projects almost completed. These projects are supporting jobs and skills in local communities and driving productivity and innovation in the construction sector. New buildings will be net zero carbon in operation, incorporating modern designs and technologies, contributing to our sustainability commitments.

In addition to the school rebuilding programme, we are continuing to invest in the school estate with annual capital funding. We have allocated over £13 billion since 2015 to maintain and improve school facilities across England, including £1.8 billion in financial year 2022-23. We have also allocated an additional £500 million in capital funding to schools and colleges this financial year for energy efficiency upgrades, helping to reduce energy use during the winter months and beyond.

Details of the schools selected for the programme and more information about the methodology used have been published on www.gov.uk.

On funding, we are allocating the additional net £2 billion for schools announced at the autumn statement.

Overall, core schools funding is increasing by £3.5 billion in 2023-24 compared to 2022-23. School funding will be at its highest ever level in real terms per pupil by 2024-25, totalling £58.8 billion.

This includes an increase in mainstream school funding, for the 5-16 age group, of over £2.5 billion in 2023-24, compared to 2022-23. High needs funding is increasing by almost £1 billion in total.

As part of this increase, mainstream schools will receive a new, mainstream schools additional grant (MSAG) for primary and secondary provision in the 2023-24 financial year. This equates to a 3.4% increase in per pupil funding for mainstream schools, on top of the allocations through the dedicated schools grant, which we are also publishing.

The detailed methodology for allocating this new grant is published at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mainstream-schools-additional-grant-2023-to-2024

The dedicated schools grant allocations are available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dedicated-schools-grant-dsg-2023-to-2024

Maintained special and alternative provision schools and academies will also receive supplementary autumn statement funding, delivered by placing a new condition of grant on local authorities’ use of their high needs allocations.

Pupil premium per pupil rates in 2023-24 will increase by 5%. This will increase pupil premium funding to £2,865 million in 2023-24, an increase of £180 million from 2022-23. This increase will ensure that this targeted funding continues to support the most disadvantaged children in our schools.

Finally, for early years, we have published the Government response to the early years funding formulae consultation launched on 4 July 2022, confirmed the hourly funding rates for the free early education entitlements in 2023-24 for each local authority, and announced their indicative allocations.

Reflecting the recently announced national living wage increases, we are investing an additional £20 million into the early years entitlements. This is on top of the £180 million for 2023-24 announced at the spending review. Taken together, this will mean at national level, early years providers are supported with the additional national living wage costs associated with delivering the free childcare entitlements next year.

We have updated the data underpinning the early years funding formulae, and have confirmed the approach to protections set out in the consultation to ensure the transition to new funding levels implied is manageable. The minimum funding floor for the three and four-year-old funding rate will therefore increase from £4.61 per hour in 2022-23 to £4.87 per hour in 2023-24. All local authorities will see at least a 1% increase in their funding rates in 2023-24, and up to a maximum of 4.9% for the three and four-year-old rate and up to 10% for the two-year-old rate. We will also increase the early years pupil premium (EYPP) and disability access fund (DAF) rates, from 60p to 62p per hour for the EYPP, and from £800 to £828 per child per year for DAF.

For maintained nursery schools (MNS), we are confirming the additional £10 million announced on 4 July 2022, providing for a minimum hourly rate of £3.80 per hour for MNS supplementary funding for all local authorities in 2023-24, and a £10 cap on the hourly rate, with transitional arrangements for the most affected local authority. We intend to maintain the cap at that level in 2024-25.

20/12/2022
Zarah Sultana – 2022 Speech on Free Primary School Meals

The speech made by Zarah Sultana, the Labour MP for Coventry South, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend eligibility for free school meals to all children in state primary schools; and for connected purposes.

When I secured an opportunity to bring this Bill to Parliament, I put out a call asking parents, teachers and anyone else to get in touch with me to explain the difference that free school meals for all would make. Although I cannot do justice to the strength of feeling conveyed to me in the hundreds of emails, messages and letters I was sent, I want to begin with a snapshot of what I was told.

Peter is a teacher in Leeds who told me about a seven-year-old child at his school who burst into tears in front of him, scared that there was not any food at home. He told me about a year 3 pupil who would steal bagels from the breakfast club and put them in his bag to take home so that he had something to eat later. He told me about children who brought packed lunches into school consisting of nothing but a few biscuits or a couple of slices of bread.

Another teacher told me of young children who would steal food from shops on the way to school. When caught, they would explain that it was the only way they would have food, and they were too scared to ask for help.

My constituent Laura told me how scared she is about when her five-year-old boy gets too old for universal free school meals. She does not know how she will pay for packed lunches.

People who received free school meals as children explained to me that they do not know how they would have managed without them. Others explained the shame they felt or the bullying they endured after being identified as a free school meal kid. My inbox is flooded with heartbreaking accounts like those. Of course, they are just a tiny example of the pain and anguish that children experience when they are denied a decent meal.

Today, about 4 million children are growing up in poverty in Britain, and almost 1 million kids live in poverty but do not have access to free school meals. Those millions of heart-wrenching accounts, just like those I have described, will never get aired or acknowledged. My Bill is a response to that injustice. It is a solution to children crying because they have not had a decent meal all day, and an answer to kids who feel that they have to steal food just to get by. It would extend free school meals to all primary school children, guaranteeing that they get a good, healthy meal each day.

The arguments in the Bill’s favour are overwhelming. The London Borough of Newham, which self-funds the policy, found that it improved concentration, attainment and behaviour. A Government pilot found that free school meals resulted in children being months ahead academically, and that children from the poorest backgrounds benefited most of all. That is no surprise. One teacher told me:

“When the day consists of long hungry hours, where a substantial meal is nowhere in sight, who wouldn’t struggle to learn and concentrate?”

The Bill would not only combat educational inequality but improve children’s health. Just 1.6% of packed lunches are estimated to meet the Government’s school food standards of nutrition, so it is hardly surprising that obesity rates fell when the Government introduced infant free school meals in 2014, as unhealthy packed lunches were replaced with healthy school meals.

The arguments for why free school meals must be for all children are clear. The existing means-tested policy, which requires the family’s income to be below the horrifyingly low figure of just £7,400 and for them to qualify for certain benefits, not only excludes nearly half a million children who are in poverty but entails a complicated application process that creates a barrier for some of the most disadvantaged and marginalised communities. More fundamentally, means testing separates children, puts labels on them and provokes stigma. Pupils who receive free school meals tell me that they feel embarrassed and ashamed, and that they are mocked and bullied. We might wish that those things did not happen, but they do.

Earlier today, I was on “Good Morning Britain”, and the presenter, Richard Madeley, told me that he remembered the stigma that kids on free school meals faced even in his day. That stigma is an unavoidable part of means testing, but it does not exist with universal provision. Free school meals for all means that all children eat together and learn together, and it avoids the trap of second-rate provision for the poorest. Too often, services just for the poor end up being poor services.

The overwhelmingly clear benefits of free school meals for all are why countries from India to Sweden have adopted the policy; they are why the Scottish Government have implemented the policy and why the Welsh Government are doing likewise. Championed by the London Mayor Sadiq Khan, London boroughs from Islington and Newham to Southwark and Tower Hamlets are self-funding this policy, with the new Labour administration in Westminster shortly joining them. But aside from these small pockets in the capital, while children in Scotland and Wales can look forward to free school meals for all, kids in England are denied them.

I am sure that Conservative Members will want to ask the question I always get asked when I speak to the media about free school meals for all: how will you pay for it? It is always asked as if it is a “gotcha”, as if the aim for every child to have a good meal a day was utopian and an impossible fantasy. It is a strange question to ask, after just being told that the policy is a reality in other parts of the UK and across the world. It is as if children in England were uniquely difficult to feed. It also forgets—as Conservative Members are only too pleased for us to forget—that there is immense wealth in this country. For example, there was enough wealth for the Chancellor to give a tax cut to the bankers worth an estimated £18 billion in the autumn statement, and there was so much wealth that the richest 177 people in the country added an extra £55 billion to their fortunes this year, taking their combined wealth to over £650 billion. Just for clarity, that is 65 and 10 zeros.

If Conservative Members want a more direct way to fund this, however, I have an easy answer for them. Private schools currently receive a tax break worth £1.7 billion a year, which is nearly double the cost of this policy. So the question I put to the House is: do we want to protect tax breaks for elite private schools or do we want to feed hungry kids? This Conservative Government are making a choice. They are choosing to protect tax breaks for the wealthy while denying food to hungry kids.

Free school meals for all was a vital policy before this cost of living crisis, but now it is an even more urgent demand. Families who were forced to choose between heating and eating are now unable to do either. Parents who were just about coping yesterday cannot cope today, and this winter a third of all children are predicted to go hungry. Some 70% of food banks report that they will need either to turn people away or to cut the size of their emergency rations. Soaring food prices and rocketing energy bills have pushed people to the brink. Children are going to bed hungry at home and they are forced to learn on hungry stomachs at school. Let us end this injustice and guarantee that every child gets a good healthy meal each day.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Zarah Sultana, Ian Byrne, Kim Johnson, Sir Stephen Timms, Caroline Lucas, Daisy Cooper, Munira Wilson, Apsana Begum, Richard Burgon, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Andy McDonald and Lloyd Russell-Moyle present the Bill.

Zarah Sultana accordingly presented the Bill.

15/12/2022
Robert Halfon – 2022 Skills Update

The statement made by Robert Halfon, the Minister of State at the Department for Education on 13 December 2022.

As part of the Government’s commitment to provide a comprehensive and clear skills offer for employers and individuals, the Government have decided to integrate the Traineeship programme into 16-19 study programme and adult education provision from 1 August 2023. Integrating Traineeships into general provision means the Department for Education will no longer fund the delivery of Traineeships through a standalone national programme. All the elements of the Traineeship programme—English and maths, work experience, employability and occupational skills, and qualifications—will continue to be funded for 16-19 year olds as part of the national 16- 19 study programme, and for adults through the adult education budget. This means that providers with access to funding can choose to continue to offer Traineeship programmes for young people who need support to get into work, apprenticeships or further learning.

In addition, there are other great alternative opportunities provided by other programmes such as T-levels and the T-level transition programme, Bootcamps, Apprenticeships, and Sector-Based Work Academies.

In areas where the adult education budget has been devolved, Mayoral combined authorities and Greater London authority will decide on how best to support young adults in their areas.

Integrating the national Traineeship programme will simplify the skills landscape making it easier to navigate for young people and employers. It will also enable employers, training providers and local authorities to tailor their programmes, as they will have greater flexibilities to design a Traineeship around the learner or business need as we will be removing the national framework which sets strict requirements on providers, in how they must deliver a Traineeship. This will better support individual learners and focus on local needs to support growth at a local level, and help young people gain the skills they need to get into apprenticeships and sustainable employment.

The Traineeship programme has been running for nearly 10 years and the number of starts has remained relatively low. To encourage growth, we introduced occupationally specific Traineeships, an employer incentive and featured Traineeships within various communications campaigns. However, the 17,400 starts achieved in the 2020-21 academic year and the 15,500 starts in 2021-22 remains a small number of starts for a nationally administered programme. It is right, therefore, that we focus our offer on our mainstream provision. This change will make it easier for young people and employers to navigate our skills offer and will enable providers to better tailor their programmes to deliver the key skills needed to drive growth in local communities.

13/12/2022
Damian Green – 2001 Comments on the Education Bill

The comments made by Damian Green, the then Shadow Education Secretary, on 22 November 2001.

The Government will claim this Bill is deregulatory. This is flatly the opposite of the truth.

It amounts to the biggest move yet towards the centralisation of decision-making in education.

The Government is about to snuff out even more areas of independent activity in education. Under the guise of encouraging innovation in schools, the Bill will take power away from local government, from school governors and from headteachers, and keep that power back in Whitehall.

I think this approach is exactly the opposite of what we need in our schools today. You cannot create a world-class education system if all power lies with the Secretary of State.

If the Archangel Gabriel was available to be Secretary of State for Education and Skills, we still should not give him the powers that the current Secretary of State wants for herself in this Bill.

What we need are motivated teachers, schools that can think for themselves, local authorities that can take their own decisions. We will get none of that from this Bill.

12/12/2022
Nick Gibb – 2022 Speech on Ofsted School Inspections

The speech made by Nick Gibb, the Minister of State at the Department for Education, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 6 December 2022.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate, and I thank him for his kind opening remarks. This important subject deserves scrutiny and discussion in the House, and I have valued the opportunity to listen to my hon. Friend’s insights in his well-constructed speech.

We all share an ambition to ensure that every pupil in every school across the country receives the education that they deserve—one that helps them to achieve academically, and more broadly prepares them to thrive and contribute to the world beyond school. Ofsted, as the independent inspectorate for schools, has a distinct and central role to play in supporting that ambition. Ofsted school inspection serves a range of purposes. It provides an independent and rounded assessment of a school’s quality, which gives key information to parents and informs their choices. It gives recognition and validation to effective practice where it is seen, and prompts self-improvement. It also offers assurance to the wider community about standards. It triggers intervention where necessary, and provides evidence to the Government and Parliament about the quality of the education being provided across all our schools.

The value of Ofsted, and the root of its credibility, comes from its independence. That does not mean that Ofsted operates in a vacuum. It is, after all, an arm of Government. Critically, Ofsted can inspect and report without interference. That must be carefully guarded. His Majesty’s chief inspector is responsible for the conduct and reporting of Ofsted’s inspections. No Minister, Committee or Member of this House can amend or overturn the professional judgments of the inspectorate. That enables Ofsted to fulfil its mantra of reporting “without fear or favour”.

I appreciate that on occasion the situation can seem difficult and frustrating, especially when Ofsted’s findings are challenging or disputed. That independence and responsibility, which Parliament has chosen to bestow on His Majesty’s chief inspector, is a key safeguard for the system and it is worth preserving. I am acutely aware, as is His Majesty’s chief inspector, that independence places an onus on Ofsted to ensure that all its inspections are conducted to the highest professional standards. It has a strong responsibility to produce inspection judgments that are fair, evidence-based and accurate. That is at the heart of this afternoon’s debate. It is also the focus of the chief inspector and her inspectors, and rightly so. Given my hon. Friend’s specific concerns about the inspection of Bishop Stopford School, I will request that he get the opportunity to discuss them directly with His Majesty’s chief inspector.

Turning to the approach that Ofsted takes more generally to ensure that inspections are high quality, I remind the House that Ofsted’s school inspections are conducted under a framework that is grounded in research evidence. That framework took Ofsted two years to develop and involved significant engagement with the sector, leading to over 11,000 consultation responses. The widely supported proposals were implemented from September 2019. Of course, covid interrupted that, but Ofsted has been able to resume its full programme of inspections since September last year, and it conducted around 4,600 inspections in 2021-22.

The new framework sees a shift of focus towards the importance of curriculum, the intent of that curriculum, how it is implemented and, importantly, the impact that it has on pupil attainment and achievement. However, alongside the focus on the quality of education is assessment of a range of key aspects, such as the behaviour and attitudes of pupils, how the school is supporting pupils’ personal development, and the quality of the leadership and management of the school, including whether its safeguarding arrangements are effective. Taken together, Ofsted’s framework provides for an effective assessment of whether pupils are benefiting from a rounded inspection.

However well trained the expert workforce, and however good the framework, it is right that quality and consistency are checked. Inspection is not a tick-box exercise; it requires professional judgment to balance a wide range of evidence and form an overall assessment. The lead inspector plays a key role in this and must ensure that inspections are carried out in accordance with the principles of inspection and in line with Ofsted’s code of conduct for inspectors. Beyond that, though, Ofsted monitors the quality of inspections and the work of Ofsted inspectors through a range of formal processes.

I do not want to gloss over the one in 10. Nine out of 10 inspections are regarded as a good experience by schools, but I do not want us to pretend for one moment that every single inspection will be a happy experience. It is disappointing when those who experience inspections at first hand come away with negative feelings about the conduct or reporting of an inspection. Where there is dissatisfaction, schools are encouraged to raise their concerns with the lead inspector as soon as possible during the inspection, so that any matters can be resolved before the inspection is completed. In those circumstances, both the concerns raised and the actions taken will be recorded in the inspection evidence.

Once a school has received its draft report, it will have the opportunity to raise any comments or concerns about the inspection process and findings, which Ofsted will consider—I know that process was undergone in the case of Bishop Stopford School. If, despite the process taking place, the school feels that its issues have not been resolved, the school, on receiving its final report, can submit a formal complaint to Ofsted, which will put the report’s publication on hold while the complaint is thoroughly investigated. It is worth noting that across Ofsted’s work on schools and beyond, which amounts to over 30,000 inspections and activities each year, only around 2% lead to a formal complaint being received.

I want to conclude be reiterating my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. I hope that the comments I have made about the inspection process and the importance of maintaining the independence of Ofsted in its work, and the fact that he will be having a meeting with His Majesty’s chief inspector, have provided him with least some assurance. Schools have every right to expect that inspections are of the highest quality, and I know that HM chief inspector, her staff and her inspector workforce are fully committed to meeting this expectation and strive every day to that end.

08/12/2022
Philip Hollobone – 2022 Speech on Ofsted School Inspections

The speech made by Philip Hollobone, the Conservative MP for Kettering, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 6 December 2022.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Ofsted school inspections.

It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I thank Mr Speaker for giving me the honour of holding this debate, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I am delighted that we are joined in the Public Gallery by the headteacher of Bishop Stopford School, Jill Silverthorne, and the deputy head, Damien Keane, who recognise the importance of the issues I wish to raise. I am grateful to them for travelling to London today.

May I start by praising the Minister, who is one of the Ministers I hold in the highest regard? He has a distinguished record in education. He was shadow schools Minister from 2005 to 2010. He was a Minister in the Department for Education from 2010 to 2012. He had his second coming from 2014 to 2021 and his third coming on 26 October this year. That is 15 years of Front-Bench experience in opposition and in government. We are very lucky to have him as schools Minister. He cares about the subject and I am grateful to him for being here today and for his genuine involvement in this issue.

I wish to raise the recent Ofsted inspection of Bishop Stopford School in Kettering, which resulted in a downgrade from “outstanding” to “requires improvement.” May I declare my interest, as one of my children attends Bishop Stopford School? However, I raise the matter not because of my child, but because I think a genuine injustice has been done with this inspection.

Bishop Stopford is a non-selective secondary school and sixth form with academy status in Kettering. Located in the Headlands, the school has 1,500 pupils. At the heart of all it does is a Christian ethos, and its core values are faith, responsibility, compassion, truth and justice. That provides stability for pupils in an ever-changing world. In the light of that ethos, the school’s aim is quite simple:

“to provide the highest quality education for every student.”

The Minister has seen the school’s pupils in action. The school’s brass band performed at the Music for Youth Proms in London, in November. Students were outstanding in the performance in every respect—behaviour, attitude, performance, kindness to each other and helping staff. They did the school proud in every way possible and were tremendous ambassadors for the school. Yet Ofsted’s view is that personal development at the school “requires improvement”.

The Ofsted inspection was done on 28 and 29 June 2022. The overall recommendation was “requires improvement”. Quality of education was “good”. Sixth form provision was “good”. Behaviour and attitudes, personal development, and leadership and management were graded “requires improvement”. I am very concerned about the way in which the inspection was carried out. From the information I have received, I believe not only that the correct procedures were not followed, but that the inspection team deliberately set out to engineer a downgrade in the school’s Ofsted rating from “outstanding” to “requires improvement”. That is the equivalent of one of the highest scoring teams in the premier league being relegated straight to the conference.

I support rigorous Ofsted inspections of schools, which raise school standards. Until now, I have had every confidence in Ofsted’s abilities to inspect schools in line with proper process and to challenge them where improvements can be made, but I have to tell the Minister that it is my strong view that this Ofsted inspection has gone wrong. It should be quashed, and a fresh inspection undertaken with different inspectors. I know that this is a serious request, and I do not make it lightly.

The evidence I have heard from the headteacher, the deputy head and pupils at the school is compelling. I believe that the inspection team sent in by Ofsted went rogue. In effect, Ofsted has sent in an educational inspection hit squad with a pre-arranged agenda to downgrade this faith-based school, whatever it found on its visit. In interviews with pupils, the inspection team disparaged the school’s Christian ethos. One year 7 boy was asked, “Do you think this is a white, middle-class school?” A year 10 girl was asked, “Do you feel uncomfortable about walking upstairs when wearing a skirt?” I ask the Minister, are these questions appropriate for an Ofsted inspection?

Furthermore, the new downgraded rating for the school was leaked by Ofsted to the local community in breach of Ofsted’s own procedures.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his initiative and assiduousness on behalf of the school. I am shocked at the allegations that he has made, and I see the problems there among those of a certain faith group. Does he feel, as I do, that this inspection has increased anxieties and stress among the teachers, parents and others involved? He has asked for the whole thing to be done again, and that is probably the best thing to do, because what has happened is clearly wrong.

Mr Hollobone

I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is a Christian gentleman. He understands the importance of a Christian ethos in schools, but it seems that some Ofsted inspectors do not share those values. In this case, it seems that they have deliberately set out to downgrade the school, and the hon. Gentleman is right that that is having a devastating impact on the teachers, pupils and parents, who feel that the inspection has gone wrong and that they have all been treated extremely unfairly. It appears that, unable to criticise the school’s educational achievements, inspectors have pursued an agenda against a top-performing school with a Christian ethos by engineering criticisms of the behaviour and attitudes, personal development, and leadership and management criteria.

I thought that this matter was so serious that it should be brought to the immediate attention of the Department for Education, so I wrote to the Minister’s predecessor on 11 October. I am afraid that I do not think that Ofsted can be relied on to judge its own homework. The deficiencies in the inspection of this school are extremely serious. In effect, no one is inspecting the inspectors, and they can basically do what they like.

On the same day, I wrote to Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman, yet all I received was a one-page letter from the assistant regional director of the east midlands on 20 October saying that they noted my concerns but that nothing else would be done and that they would just go along with the complaints process in which the school was engaged. I do not regard that as satisfactory, when a Member of Parliament has raised genuine concerns.

Let us look at the quality of education at the school. On the Department’s latest unvalidated educational attainment data, Bishop Stopford School ranks 106th out of all 6,761 secondary schools in the country and is in the top 1.5%. Let us look at the key headline measures of educational attainment. On the EBacc scores, in the data comparing Bishop Stopford School with schools that Ofsted has rated “outstanding” since September 2021, the school is the highest performing non-selective school. Some 94% of the school’s students entered for the EBacc, which is massive. In Northamptonshire, the second highest school is at 79%. The national average is 39%, and the Government’s ambition is 75%.

On progress 8 scores, which show how much progress pupils at this school made between the end of key stage 2 and the end of key stage 4, out of 3,721 selective and non-selective schools with a progress 8, the school is No. 115, which is in the top 3%. On the attainment 8 scores, which are based on how well pupils have performed in up to eight qualifications, there are 3,768 non-selective schools, and Bishop Stopford School is 110th, which is in the top 3%. On the basic five GCSEs, including English and maths, Bishop Stopford School is at 70%. Of the 126 schools ranked as “requiring improvement”, Bishop Stopford School is fourth, with the range 0% to 96%. Of the 52 schools rated “outstanding”, the school is 27th, with a range of 45% to 100%, and it is fifth for the non-selective mixed schools in this category.

In terms of the number of pupils who stayed in education or went into employment after finishing key stage 4, of all the selective and non-selective schools previously rated as “outstanding”, Bishop Stopford School is ranked 16th in the whole country. Of non-selective mixed-sex schools, it is fourth in the whole country, with 98% staying in education or going into employment. Ofsted partially recognises this educational record:

“Most pupils enjoy attending Bishop Stopford School and value the teaching that they receive. The school is ‘unapologetically academic’ and leaders have high expectations of what pupils should achieve.”

Yet Ofsted only gave the school a “good” rating in this area.

The mantra about making a judgment about the quality of education is explicitly stated as depending on the three Is: intent, implementation and impact. In essence, this assesses whether a school is clear about what it wishes to achieve with its curriculum, how well that intent is implemented and what its impact is. The only way this can be easily measured is through the empirical data: results, destinations and attendance. The impact of the school’s curriculum is, once again, abundantly clear in this validated data.

If the school is enabling its young people to be so successful and to progress to high-quality destinations, there has to be a disconnect somewhere. If the school is performing so poorly, as the report suggests, how could it possibly generate outcomes that can only be described as excellent, even among the schools Ofsted has judged to be “outstanding”?

The school has followed the Ofsted complaints process, and it got a reply dated 9 November from the senior regional inspector. The school complained about the judgment on quality of education. Ofsted said that a common area that needs to be improved is using assessment to adapt teaching so that identified gaps are addressed. It said:

“modern foreign languages and the mathematics curriculum are not as securely embedded as other curriculum areas”,

and the complaint was not upheld.

The school complained about the judgment on behaviour and attitudes. Ofsted acknowledged that

“behaviour was calm and orderly around the school.”

In its report, it said that the school deals with low-level disruption when it occurs, yet in the inspection on the day the Ofsted inspectors said that there was no low-level disruption. The inspection team had a particular concern about bullying and the use of derogatory language. In this case, the grade descriptor that needed to be considered was:

“Leaders, staff and pupils create a positive environment in which bullying is not tolerated.”

The inspection team said that that criterion was not fully met, and the complaint was not upheld. Parents are in disbelief that the inspection team could come to that conclusion.

The school complained about the Ofsted judgment on personal development. Ofsted said:

“inspectors considered how the Christian ethos and wider curriculum supported pupils’ personal development”,

yet the inspection team raised the Christian ethos only twice, both times negatively.

Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Surely the aim of the equality, diversity and inclusion statement should be to ensure schools are abiding by the necessary equality regulation in legislation. I am concerned that, in some cases, Ofsted appears to take it beyond its original intention by judging schools against its own ideas about what life in modern Britain should be. Does my hon. Friend share those concerns?

Mr Hollobone

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those concerns. I do share them, as do pupils at the school. I had the privilege of speaking to some of the pupils who engaged with the inspectors. They were expecting the inspectors to ask about the curriculum and their academic studies, but they were probed particularly about the Christian ethos. One pupil, very maturely, responded: “It is not so much about Christianity as about Christian values.” That was a very mature and sensible response.

Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)

The hon. Gentleman is making a really powerful and interesting speech, and I thank him for securing this debate. Does he agree that it would be more sensible if Ofsted inspections were not so narrowly focused on academic achievement? Although that is important, and the school clearly has a fantastic academic record, Ofsted should have a more holistic approach and look at things such as how schools work extremely hard to build social and emotional resilience in children and young people and to create a happy and healthy learning environment, which gives pupils the skills and values they need to be well-rounded citizens?

Mr Hollobone

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for making that very sensible point. That is right. The school clearly has a Christian ethos. I am not saying that all the pupils and parents are Christians, but this is about Christian values and the key themes I mentioned at the beginning, which we surely all share: responsibility, compassion, truth and justice. Yet it seems that this inspection team regards those values as inappropriate for a school because they are Christian. The parents and I find that outrageous.

The pupil said that when they responded to the inspector’s question, “The inspector shut my comment down. He made me feel silly, embarrassed and a bit stupid.” Pupils described the interaction with inspectors as “intense”, “uncomfortable”, “tense” and “awkward”. Those are the pupils themselves telling me about their experiences with the inspectors. Something is not right here, and I want the Minister to take that on board.

The school complained about the judgment on sixth form provision. Ofsted said:

“Inspectors spoke to groups of students. They raised the point that they were well prepared for university, but other routes were not as well covered. While I agree that there is no statutory requirement for work experience, it was clear from the evidence that preparation for the wider world of work was not as secure as other areas of students’ wider development.”

That was Ofsted’s comment. However, 98% of pupils go on to education or go straight into employment. Nevertheless, this aspect of the complaint was not upheld. The school also complained about the overall inspection report, the overall judgment, and the inspection process, but all those complaints were not upheld. All the points that the school made to Ofsted were dismissed.

The breach of confidentiality point has not been addressed by Ofsted in any satisfactory way. Ofsted said to the school:

“It was explained that unless you were able to provide any further evidence, we would be unable to look into this any further.”

Yet the headteacher gave Ofsted the names of two local schools that had heard of the downgrade before the report was published. A serious breach of confidentiality has not been investigated properly and has effectively been dismissed.

On the comments about

“a white middle class school”

and

“walking upstairs when wearing a skirt”,

Ofsted said:

“There is no record in the evidence of the exact line of questioning from the team inspector that you referred to. Having spoken to the team inspector, they cannot recall asking the two questions that are cited.”

I have to say to the Minister that I spoke with the pupils involved and they confirmed what was said, so clearly something is not right here.

The headteacher wrote a measured letter to parents to reassure them on the back of the publication of the report, stressing the school’s outstanding academic performance. He said that

“student performance last summer was outstanding”,

and that that was based on the Department for Education’s own statistics. He went on to say:

“GCSE results place us in the top 3% of schools nationally. A Level performance data is still provisional, but with 43% of grades awarded at A and A*”.

On behaviour and attitudes, the headteacher rightly said:

“External visitors to our school almost without exception comment on the impressive behaviour and engagement of our students. On the inspection days themselves, students’ behaviour was exemplary, and the five members of the inspection team unanimously agreed that they saw no low-level disruption during the inspection.”

That is not what the report said. He went on to say, rightly:

“Unfortunately, this detail has not been included in the report, but we will be sharing with students that we were immensely proud of the way they conducted themselves and upheld our core values in the inspection—and continue to do so.”

I have to say to the Minister that since the report was published 500 parents have been in touch with the school to offer their support and basically they say that they do not believe what Ofsted is saying and do not respect the downgrade to “requires improvement”. However, I think there is a wider agenda going on here, because although I believe that Bishop Stopford has been picked on, recent information has come out that more than four fifths of “outstanding” schools inspected last year have lost their top grade after the exemption from inspection was removed. Also, the chief inspector herself said that the outcomes from the first full year of inspection since it was scrapped:

“show that removing a school from scrutiny does not make it better.”

A fifth of schools, including Bishop Stopford, dropped at least two grades.

The Minister will know that schools rated “outstanding” were exempt from reinspection between 2012 and 2020. The exemption was lifted in 2020 after Ofsted warned that over a thousand schools had not been inspected in at least 10 years. Ofsted itself has said that 308 of the 370 previously exempt schools had a graded inspection that resulted in a downgrade, which is 83%: 62% became “good”; 17% fell to “requires improvement”, including Bishop Stopford; and 4% fell from “outstanding” to “inadequate”. This is a power grab from Ofsted, saying to the Government, “You must let us inspect all schools all the time.” I am not sure that is appropriate, given the level of distress it can cause to excellent schools such as Bishop Stopford when an inspection goes wrong.

On behalf of the school, parents and local residents in Kettering, I ask the Minister to quash the report and send in a fresh inspection team. Let us have a proper inquiry into the leaking of the downgrade. If quashing is not possible within the Minister’s powers, can we have a reinspection of the school at the earliest opportunity? I would not want that grade hanging over the school for potentially the next 30 months. At the very least, can we have a meeting between the Minister himself, the chief inspector, the headteacher and myself as the local parliamentary representative, so that local concerns that the inspection went wrong can be relayed in the clearest possible terms to Ofsted?

08/12/2022
Gillian Keegan – 2022 Statement on Capital Spending for Educational Establishments

The statement made by Gillian Keegan, the Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 6 December 2022.

Today, I am confirming £500 million of additional capital funding for schools, sixth form colleges and Further Education colleges to help improve energy efficiency this financial year.

This comprises £447 million for schools and sixth form colleges and £53 million for FE colleges to spend on capital improvements to buildings and facilities, prioritising works to improve energy efficiency. The Department has published guidance for schools and colleges on sensible steps for reducing energy use and small-scale works to improve energy efficiency, which can be implemented quickly to make a difference through the colder months and beyond.

Schools and colleges will be allocated at least £10,000 of additional capital funding, with further funding allocated in proportion to size. Primary schools have been allocated an average of approximately £16,000 and secondary schools an average of £42,000. An average group of FE colleges will be allocated £290,000. Schools and colleges can decide how best to invest the capital funding on energy efficiency measures. Where they judge this is not appropriate based on local circumstances, they have discretion to spend this on other capital projects.

The funding will be made available to FE colleges and designated institutions, as well as schools already eligible for Devolved Formula Capital (DFC) allocations in financial year 2022-23. This includes eligible maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools, academies and free schools, pupil referral units, non-maintained special schools, sixth form colleges and specialist post-16 institutions with eligible students.

This funding comes on top of £1.8 billion of capital funding already committed this financial year for improving the condition of school buildings. In addition, the School Rebuilding Programme will rebuild or refurbish buildings at 500 schools and sixth form colleges over the next decade. The allocations are also on top of the £1.5 billion investment in upgrading the FE college estate through the FE Capital Transformation Programme, the more than £400 m of capital funding provided so far for T Levels providers, and the £150 million allocation of capital funding for colleges announced on 29 November.

The Government understand that like families and businesses across the country, schools and FE colleges are facing challenges with rising prices due to inflation. Significant increases to school revenue funding will help schools to manage these higher costs, with core schools’ funding—including funding for both mainstream schools and high needs—increasing by £4 billion in financial year 2022-23 compared to the previous year. The autumn statement 2022 confirmed that this Government will protect the per pupil funding levels committed to at spending review 2021 in real terms, providing an additional net increase in the core schools budget of £2.0 billion in both 2023-24 and 2024-25. This brings the core schools budget to a total of £58.8 billion in 2024-25. This additional funding will be used to support both mainstream schools and local authorities’ high needs budgets.

Overall funding for the FE sector is increasing with an extra £1.6 billion in 16-19 education in 2024-25 compared with 2021-22. This funding has come with stretching deliverables to transform our technical education offer—including T-levels, and extra provision to support education recovery to enable learners to catch up from the pandemic.

Schools, FE colleges and education providers are also benefiting from the Energy Bill Relief Scheme. This will reduce how much schools and other providers need to spend on their energy, and give greater certainty over budgets over the winter months.

07/12/2022
Jeremy Miles – 2022 Statement on the Teachers’ Pay Award in Wales

The statement made by Jeremy Miles, the Welsh Minister for Education and the Welsh Language, on 14 November 2022.

I can announce today there will be an uplift of pay for our highly skilled and hardworking teachers in Wales.

On 21 July, subject to consultation with key stakeholders, I agreed in principle to accept all of the Independent Welsh Pay Review Body’s recommendations for 2022/23 including an uplift of 5% to all statutory salary points on all pay scales and for all allowances from September 2022. I can confirm today that we will be accepting the Review Body’s recommendations.

The new starting salary for teachers will therefore be £28,866 and the salaries of more experienced classroom teachers will increase by £2,117 to £44,450. Additionally, all allowances will also be uprated by 5%.

I accept that some may be disappointed that a higher award could not be provided and recognise the legitimate right of all workers to seek a fair and decent pay rise during this challenging time of inflation and cost of living rises.

However, as additional funding has not been made available by the UK Government, we are not in a position to further address these issues over and above what has previously been considered. The Welsh Government’s budget will be worth £4bn less over the three years of the current settlement – £1.5bn lower next year. This is before the much touted further budgetary cuts the UK Government claims it will make imminently. Within this context, it is simply unaffordable, and would be irresponsible, to propose higher pay rises. We repeat our calls for the UK Government to finally do the right thing and act urgently to restore Wales’s budget so that we can support our public services.

Members will recognise that there is a huge amount of ongoing financial uncertainty.

In relation to future pay awards from September 2023, no compelling evidence was provided to alter my earlier proposal for the IWPRB recommendations to be kept under review and be used as a planning assumption, subject to such a review.

I also welcomed the IWPRBs recommendations on improvements to some key terms and conditions of teachers, notably in relation to remuneration of part-time teachers for TLR allowances; and the need to review the remuneration of ALNCos. I thank both employers and teacher unions for working alongside us on these matters to further improve terms and conditions for teachers in Wales. In particular, I welcome the agreed revisions to the required methodology for calculating TLR allowances for part time teachers which will improve the transparency and fairness for those part time teachers carrying out these roles from now on.

Consequently, I will today make the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions (Wales) Order 2022 which gives effect to the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions (Wales) Document 2022.

The pay award will be backdated to 1 September 2022. Timing of the implementation of the award will be a matter for employers. Initial discussions with local authorities have been positive, with the aim to arrange for back pay to be passed on as soon as possible, hopefully before the end of December.

Moving forward, I welcome the opportunity to continue to work together with stakeholders on a comprehensive review of the structure of teachers’ and leaders’ pay and conditions. This will provide us with further opportunities to improve and enhance the system and, where we can, make it fairer and more transparent for all teachers. Such partnership working will also help to promote teaching as a profession of choice for graduates and career changers.

03/12/2022
Robert Halfon – 2022 Statement on Further Education

The statement made by Robert Halfon, the Minister of State at the Department for Education, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2022.

Today the Office for National Statistics published its decision to reclassify the further education sector and its subsidiaries as part of the central Government sector.

The ONS is an agency independent of Ministers, and it periodically reviews the classification of all sectors of the economy for the purposes of national accounts. More information on classification and how the ONS has reached this decision is available on its website.

This means the statutory further education sector—FE colleges, sixth-form colleges and designated institutions—and its subsidiaries are treated from today, 29 November 2022, for financial and accounting purposes as part of the central Government sector, with my Department as the principal Department responsible for ensuring the sector complies with financial and accounting rules. In practice, this means that colleges are now subject to the framework for financial management set out in the parliamentary document “Managing Public Money”, guidance on senior pay and other relevant central Government guidance.

The mission of colleges—to continue to fulfil their role at the heart of their communities, working in partnership with employers, local government and other providers to meet the needs of learners and the labour market—has never been more important. The decision to reclassify the FE sector will not alter these strategic aims. Colleges will continue to play a leadership role in England’s skills system. My officials will work to make sure that they provide the world-leading skills infrastructure that our country needs while adequately demonstrating that we are managing public money well.

My officials said at the start of the review that we wanted to ensure that if colleges were reclassified, it happened in as seamless a way as possible, maintaining continuity and stability for the sector where possible. We have taken the time to get these changes right; to give colleges the support that they need as the transition takes place; and to explore the ways that colleges, learners, employers and communities might all make the most of this change. Colleges will retain many of the flexibilities they currently have and day-to-day operations will continue with minimal changes, so colleges can maintain a smooth delivery.

With that in mind, my officials are publishing the Government’s response to this reclassification decision today, which sets out how my Department will continue to support colleges following the ONS’s decision.

To support and protect colleges, we will be:

Investing £300 million of payments before the end of the current financial year to eliminate the current deficit in funding experienced by March and move to a profile of funding that better matches need, recognising the challenging environment the sector faces;

Providing an additional £150 million of capital grant funding in 2023 to 2024 to support and protect colleges planning to invest in their infrastructure/estate where previously they would have borrowed from commercial lenders;

Allowing colleges to retain flexibility on using surpluses and sale of assets, ensuring that colleges can continue to invest in their estates while complying with the “Managing Public Money” framework; and

Working in partnership with the sector to develop the future approach to financial reporting, and a new college handbook

This means that how colleges report to and interact with Government will change. Colleges will be required to ensure their systems of financial control support public sector standards of accountability.

“Managing Public Money” is clear that public sector organisations may borrow from private sector sources only if the transaction delivers better value for money for the Exchequer. Because non-Government lenders face higher financing costs, in practice it is very unlikely that central Government bodies—now including colleges—will be able to satisfy this condition for future private sector borrowing. If colleges have any proposals for new private sector borrowing, they will now need Department for Education approval—we will update college learner grant agreements to include this as a condition of funding.

In recognition of the limitation on private sector borrowing that reclassification as part of central Government imposes, and in response to feedback from the FE sector and stakeholder groups, I am pleased to confirm that my Department will be investing an additional £150 million of capital funding in further education and sixth-form colleges. This change means that although colleges will have only very limited access to private finance, they will benefit from additional grant funding to improve the condition of the college estate. From the research we have done with colleges, I understand this is one of the main reasons that colleges currently seek private finance, so I hope it will be welcomed by the FE sector.

Furthermore, to help colleges manage their cashflow, my Department will address the historical issue of uneven monthly payments from central Government, which leave colleges out of pocket by March each year. My Department will invest £300 million in bringing forward payments into this financial year to enable us to smooth out the funding, so we have a new even profile for colleges from 2023 to 2024 for both the 16 to 19 and adult education budgets.

I can also confirm that colleges will retain the flexibility to carry over surpluses from one year to the next, and to keep and spend the proceeds from the sale of assets, subject to certain conditions, and this will be kept under review.

Many colleges have subsidiaries, some of which are profit-making entities with commercial operations. Subsidiaries play an important role in the college system, both in delivering provision and generating commercial income. Colleges will also retain the ability to operate their trading subsidiaries, which the ONS has reclassified to the central Government sector.

Regarding financial reporting, colleges will continue to produce their own annual report and accounts as normal for the year ending 31 July 2023. The Department will eventually be required to consolidate the accounts for all FE colleges into one. This means we will require additional information from colleges. We will be working with the sector to ensure that the impact of this request is manageable.

My officials will begin work to write a new college financial handbook and engage with representatives from the sector from the outset, with a view to sharing it in draft with colleges and sector bodies in autumn 2023 for consultation so that they are clear what is expected of them and build their understanding and support. In parallel, my officials will set up the necessary processes and data collection systems to operationalise the new MPM requirements. The handbook will be finalised for publication in March 2024, ahead of an effective date of August 2024 to coincide with the start of the financial year.

The changes will be explained in more detail in a letter from the accounting officer of the Education and Skills Funding Agency to all college financial directors and will be followed by further guidance to help colleges comply with the “Managing Public Money” framework and other central Government guidance as quickly as possible.

I am also writing today to college principals to explain the changes that need to be made and to thank them for the important role they will play in the public sector.

We have taken the opportunity of reclassification to strengthen our arrangements for, and invest more in, this hugely important sector, which is now more obviously than ever a vital part of the Government’s skills agenda for the future.

The Government’s response ensures we use this opportunity to continue to support colleges to do what they do best, while balancing this against the need to adequately demonstrate that we are managing public money well.

30/11/2022