UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Education

  • Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech at the Joseph Rowntree Lecture

    Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech at the Joseph Rowntree Lecture

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 8 July 2004.

    Our Children Are Our Future – Joseph Rowntree Lecture

    It is a privilege to be here today to deliver the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Centenary Lecture and let me begin by paying tribute to one hundred years of service to our community by the Rowntree Foundation.

    Born out of Joseph Rowntree’s concern and Christian outrage about poverty and deprivation.

    Built by the dedicated commitment of people who had a vision of the world not as it was but as it could be.

    And today widely acknowledged to be at the heart of what I can call the nationwide crusade for justice for the poor, with not just an established and well deserved reputation for authoritative research that consistently shines a spotlight on the needs of our country’s families but a path-breaking role in finding practical solutions – that started with pioneering developments in housing and community regeneration and now extends into not just housing and community regeneration but innovative forms of care for the young, the  elderly and the disabled.

    So in a century of service, the Rowntree Foundation, always rooted in values of public service, always driven forward by ideas and often painstaking research, always a tangible national expression of compassion in action – taking its rightful place as one of the great British national institutions.

    So I want today at the outset to congratulate all of you – board, staff, supporters, campaigners – on your years of progress and achievement.  And I hope you can be proud that your concern – poverty; your mission – to shock the nation into action against poverty; and your driving ambition – the eradication of poverty — for far too many years a call for justice unheard in a political wilderness, is the ambition now not just of your organisation but now the ambition of this country’s Government.

    And let me also say today that I am humbled not just to deliver this lecture to this Foundation but to address a gathering of so many people who have served our communities and country with such distinction, men and women here today in this audience so distinguished in their own spheres of service  – charity workers, social workers, community activists, academics, researchers, NGO leaders.

    You have not only worked year after year to tackle social evils but have worked tirelessly in some of the most difficult circumstances, keeping the flame of compassion alive often in some of the least propitious times and in some of the darkest and most challenging corners of our community. So especially for those who have toiled at the front line – often with few resources and little support — let me place on record my appreciation of the service so many of you give – of the work you do, the contribution you make, the dedication you show and the real difference you make.

    Let us think back to the conditions Joseph Rowntree surveyed one hundred years ago. The first building blocks of the modern welfare state yet to be established, the Lloyd George People’s Budget still a few years away, but Victorian and Edwardian society starting to discover the full scale of poverty in their midst. And Winston Churchill – who went on to introduce the first minimum wage – appalled by the huge gap between what he called the excesses of accumulated privilege and the gaping sorrows of the left out millions.

    And about Joseph Rowntree we could have no doubt: an idealist not a dreamer; an enthusiastic reformer not a reluctant donor; and in his lifetime and through the foundation he created we can genuinely say that he led the way in four areas vital to the development of our social services and the fabric of our community life.

    First, his plea – and I quote – that we ‘search out the underlying causes of weakness or evil in the community rather than remedying their more superficial manifestations’.  You might call it tough love: his rightful insistence that we tackle the sources of poverty and not just their consequences, that we should focus on the eradication of the evil of social injustice and not just compensate people for its existence.

    Second, Rowntree’s insistence on an evidence based approach. Indeed his Foundation is a monument to one man’s conviction that the lives of countless fellow citizens can be improved by the intelligent application of knowledge and then policy to one of the greatest social evils and one of the greatest moral challenges of the day.

    And that led thirdly to an understanding of the multiple causes of poverty, and the multidimensional nature, of poverty. And although there have been many changes in the last 100 years – for when he began there was no sickness benefit, no state pensions, no unemployment benefit and no National Health Service – I am struck by the fact that the multiple challenges that Rowntree identified in his ‘Founders Memorandum’ still remain relevant today – the challenge of poverty itself, of bad housing, poor education, neighbourhood renewal.  And you could say that he understood what was meant by multiple deprivation long before the term was even invented.

    And finally it led him – and the Foundation – to pioneer an understanding of the life cycle of poverty.

    In 1904, Rowntree described that tragic life cycle – of poverty during childhood, poverty for parents when they had children and poverty during old age. A lifecycle of poverty broken only by the short periods where you were an adult before your children were born or an adult whose children had grown up and left home.

    And the striking truth about what we found in 1997 was how firmly and how widely this ‘life cycle of poverty’ had returned.

    And I believe that Rowntree would agree that addressing the multiple causes of poverty and the life cycle of poverty in our times, demands we be far bolder than the philanthropists of 1904.

    Let us recall that in 1942 – nearly 40 years after the Rowntree Foundation was set up and in response to some of its pioneering work – Sir William Beveridge identified five evils – want, idleness, ignorance, squalor and disease – which a new welfare state had to confront.

    But because we are interested in the potential of every person, our goal today – inspired by Rowntree – must be even more ambitious than the one Beveridge set us in 1942 when he listed his five evils:

    • Instead of simply attacking idleness and unemployment, our goal is the genuinely challenging goal of full and fulfilling employment;
    • Instead of simply attacking ignorance, our goal is the more ambitious goal of lifelong education for all;
    • Instead of simply attacking squalor, our goal is high quality affordable, housing for all and not just houses but strong and sustainable communities;
    • Instead of simply tackling disease, our goal is not just an NHS there when you need it but health and social policies that can prevent as well as cure disease and
    • promote good health;
    • Instead of just securing freedom from want – which meant sufficiency and minimum standards – our goal is the development of the potential of all to secure prosperity for all.

    And in addressing these great challenges, our objective must be to ensure not only dignity for the elderly in retirement and the chance for all adults to realise their potential but that every child has the best possible start in life.

    And it is on the needs of children and the challenges ahead that I want to concentrate my remarks on policy today.

    Equality of opportunity

    Our starting point – the same starting point as Rowntree – is a profound belief in the equal worth of every human being and our duty to help each and everyone – all children and all adults – develop their potential to the full —- to help individuals bridge the gap between what they are and what they have it in themselves to become.  It is that belief that for the Rowntree Foundation is a summons to act and a call to duty.

    And if in our generation we are to ensure each person has the chance to develop their potential, it is clear that as a society we must develop a more generous view of opportunity than the old idea of a single chance to get your foot on a narrow ladder – one opportunity at school till 16 – followed by an opportunity for a minority to go on to Higher Education — which for millions of people in Britain meant rejection by 16, that if you had missed that chance it was gone forever.

    It is simply a denial of any belief in equality of opportunity if we assume that there is one type of intelligence, one means of assessing it, only one time when it should be assessed and only one chance of succeeding. It is because neither potential nor intelligence can be reduced to a single number in an IQ test – and because ability should never be seen as fixed – that no individual should be written off at 7, 11 or 16 – or indeed at any time in their life.  Justifying a far richer and more expansive view of equality of opportunity and fairness of outcome: to recognise that people have a breadth and diversity of potential; that their talents take many forms – not just analytical intelligence but skills in communication, language, and working with other people; that these talents can develop and be nurtured not just at school but over a lifetime; and that it is our duty – our unceasing duty – to ensure that throughout the life cycle there are – in education, employment, our culture and our economy and society – not only real opportunities for men and women to develop their potential but that there is, the core of Rowntree’s philosophy, a special duty to ensure no one is left behind.  And what has always been right on ethical grounds can now, today, be seen as good for the economy too.

    In our information-age economy, the most important resource of a firm or a country is not its raw materials, or a favourable geographical location, but the skills, and the potential of the whole workforce. Indeed what matters most in the new economy is not what a company has as assets on its balance sheet, its physical capital, but what assets it has in the talent in its workforce. Its human capital.

    In the industrial age, the denial of opportunity offended many people.  Today, in an economy where skills are the essential means of production, the denial of opportunity has become an unacceptable inefficiency and brake on prosperity.

    Full prosperity for a company or country can only be delivered — and Britain properly equipped for the future – if we get the best out of all people. And that cannot happen without opportunity that taps the widest pool of talent.  In the modern world therefore policies for the good economy and the good society go together.  So even if we could not persuade some of our fellow citizens to support action against poverty out of a concern for social justice, these same people should be driven to support action against poverty as a means to ensuring economic prosperity.

    And once we take this view that what matters on both ethical and economic grounds is opportunity to realise potential, we are challenged not only to break down all barriers of race, sex, class, and other discriminations but to actively promote changes that will deliver opportunities in practice.

    And our ambition to eradicate child poverty is the most tangible expression of the bigger moral and economic purpose I have described – to eliminate poverty so that we can ensure that every child has the chance to realise their potential.

    Child poverty

    Yet the return in the last three decades of the life cycle of poverty – indeed the great and unacceptable concentration of poverty amongst households with young children – is the greatest indictment of  our country in this generation and the greatest challenge of all.

    The facts are that in the two decades before 1997 the number of children growing up in workless households – households where no one had a job – rose to almost 20 per cent. One in every five children did not have a parent earning any income from work.

    The numbers of children in low income households more than doubled to over 4 million.

    And you must never forget that the UK – one of the richest countries of the industrial world – suffered worse levels of child poverty than nearly all other industrialised nations.

    Indeed, anyone reading reports on the condition of Britain will be shocked by one straightforward but disgraceful fact.

    When we came into Government one in every three babies born in Britain were being born into low income households. Born not into opportunity but into poverty.

    This is the ‘Condition of Britain’ question we had to confront one hundred years after the Joseph Rowntree Foundation was set up.

    And it is the ‘Condition of Britain’ question still with us fifty years after Beveridge and the creation of the welfare state.

    Not only was child poverty endemic by 1997 but social mobility had slowed – in some respects, gone into reverse.  And while more room existed at the top, a child from the lowest social class was a quarter as likely to make it to that place at the top as the child from the highest social class.

    But during these years when child poverty grew so too did our understanding of all that we had to do to tackle child poverty – and in particular just how crucial the first months and certainly the first years of a child’s life are in determining life chances.

    Indeed recent research suggests that much of children’s future prospects can be predicted within 24 months of them being born.  Leon Feinstein has shown how psychological and behavioural differences varying strongly by social class can be seen in children as young as 22 months and continue to have a systematic – and increasingly significant – effect on employment and earnings patterns right through to later life. Research undertaken in the US shows that pre-school experiences in language and literacy are strong predictors of later development in language and literacy.  And the Effective Provision of Pre School Education (EPPE) project in the UK found that children who participated in some sort of early learning made significantly more progress than those who didn’t. Abigail McKnight concludes that individuals who experience childhood poverty tend to suffer a penalty in labour market earnings in adult life, and that the size of this penalty has grown over time.

    For we now also know from your research that an infant who then grows up in a poor family is less likely to stay on at school, or even attend school regularly, less likely to get qualifications and go to college, more likely to be trapped in the worst job or no job at all, more likely to be trapped in a cycle of deprivation that is life long…less likely to reach his or her full potential, a young child’s chances crippled even before their life’s journey has barely begun.

    I believe that action to eradicate child poverty is the obligation this generation owes to the next.

    Children may not have votes – or the loudest voices…or at least their voices are not often heard in our politics – but our obligation is, if anything, greater because of this.

    And we also need to understand that these children are not just someone else’s children and someone else’s problem.  For if we do not find it within ourselves to pay attention to them as young children today, they may force us to pay attention to them as troubled adults tomorrow.

    So in 1999 determined to ensure that each child has the chance to realise his or her potential the government set an ambitious long term goal to halve child poverty by 2010 and eradicate it by 2020.

    Tackling child poverty is, for us, the critical first step in ensuring that each child has the chance to develop their potential to the full.

    And as a first step, we have sought to reduce the number of children in low income households by April 2005 at least a quarter.

    So far, measured by absolute low income, 2 million children have been lifted out of poverty; so far too, measured by relative low income, half a million children have been lifted out. And I think there is general agreement that having allocated resources to raise our child tax credits for the poorest families, we are on track to meet our target of reducing child poverty by a quarter by April next year.

    But we are not complacent in any way nor will we relax our efforts or allow them to be stalled.

    The next step – our goal of, by 2010, reducing child poverty by half – is even more challenging and how we reach this goal is the subject of the remaining observations I want to share with you.

    I can tell you today that in the spending review next week we will set out the detail of the target for 2010 – to halve the number of children in households in relative low income compared to 1998.

    As many of you have proposed to us, next Monday we will also set out an additional target to halve the numbers of children suffering from material deprivation – children lacking basic necessities the rest of us take for granted.  And because we know from your research that the quality of housing is critical in tackling poverty, we will – as part of this new material deprivation measure – be monitoring the quality of a child’s housing conditions.  Acting, I believe, in the spirit of Rowntree.

    And so let me point you to the policy changes that I believe are now necessary if we are to meet this anti poverty target, the means by which we seek to develop the potential of millions of British children.

    Financial support

    First, you would expect me as Chancellor to talk about hard cash and I am happy to do that.

    We can make progress towards halving child poverty because between 1997 and this year, for the family with one child, child benefit has already risen from £11.05 to £16.50 – a 25 per cent rise above inflation.

    But while universal child benefit is the foundation, it is the introduction of the child tax credit – now benefiting six million families and 10 million children, and led in Government by Dawn Primarolo – that allows us, while giving more to every child, to give most to those who need it most –— and is thus the front line of our attack on child poverty.

    So with the addition of the child tax credit the nine out of ten families who would in 1997 have received just £11  in child benefits now receives more than twice as much – £27 a week.

    For the poorest families tax credits go even further: with one child under 11, financial support which was £28 in 1997 is now £58.22 – a near doubling in real terms.  And a family with two children under 11 can now receive in children’s benefits over £100 a week.

    Indeed, progress is being made to meeting our child poverty target because the poorest 20 per cent of families have received not 20 per cent of all additional money but over 40 per cent.

    And, as a result, while all families with children are on average £1350 a year better off now than they were in 1997, the poorest 20 per cent of families are £3000 a year better off.

    For the rest of this Parliament we will continue to uprate the child element of the child tax credit in line with earnings —- and I can tell you today that in future Pre Budget Reports and Budgets we will assess progress towards our 2010 goal.

    As a Government we have also come to realise that if we are to meet our child poverty goals and ensure that there is equality in opportunity but also fairness in outcome, assets matter as well as income. So to each child born after September 2002 an initial contribution to their own individual child trust fund of  £250, with twice as much – £500 – for the poorest third of children; and then again a contribution at seven and then perhaps at later ages to enable all young people to have more of the choices that were once available only to some.

    With the new child trust fund worth twice as much for the poorest child; with the child tax credit worth four times as much for the poorest child; and with five times as much for the poorest infant – our anti-poverty commitment is based on a progressive principle that I believe that all decent minded people can and should support: more for every child, even more help for those who need it most and at the time they need it most, equality of opportunity and fairness of outcome applied in new times and with tax credits the principal new means.

    And as we develop our policies on financial support over the coming years, I recognise from your research and policy proposals that we have not done enough in a number of important ways and that there are major issues which now need to be addressed including:

    • First the costs faced by larger families and the consequences for benefits and tax credits
    • And second the housing costs faced by the low-paid, and this requires us also to evaluate the way housing benefit interacts with the tax and benefit system and the impact of the pilots for paying flat rate housing benefit.

    Employment

    So looking ahead we will continue to address the issue of children’s benefits but we have also always been clear about the importance of the contribution of family employment to meeting our child poverty targets.   And of course we must get the balance right between supporting mothers to stay at home, particularly in the early years, and creating opportunities for employment.

    Again it is because of tax credits – which create a new tax system whose rates start at 40 per cent at the top but go to as low as minus 200 per cent for the lowest income earners – that a lone parent with one child working 35 hours at the minimum wage is now £73 a week better off in work than on benefit.  And a couple with one child and one parent working 35 hours at the minimum wage is now around £38 a week better off in work than on benefit.

    Because the starting wage for the unemployed man or woman returning to work is typically only two thirds of the average hourly rate, the child and working tax credits have been designed not just to help people into work but to help people in work move up the jobs ladder and into higher incomes. Under the old system of family credit, 740,000 households faced marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rates of over 70 per cent, now the new credits have cut this figure by nearly two thirds, helping people keep more of every extra pound they earn.

    In total, 1.8 million more people are in jobs now than in 1997, with unemployment reduced to its lowest level in 30 years. But if we are to meet our child poverty targets we must advance further and faster to full employment in every community and we must make it a priority to reach the still large number of households with children — where no adult works.

    And of crucial importance in meeting our child poverty target for 2010 will be employment opportunity for lone parents.

    It is a striking fact that lone parent households contain a quarter of all children but account for nearly half of those in poverty.

    As a result one and a half million of the country’s poorest children are today living on benefit in lone parent families where no one has a job.

    Since 1997 250,000 more lone parents have gone into work.

    Because of the new deal the minimum wage, the working tax credit and other initiatives, the lone parent rate of employment in the UK has increased to 53 per cent.

    But in the US lone parent employment is more than 60 per cent, in Sweden above 70 per cent and in France in excess of 80 per cent.

    Our target is 70 per cent lone parent employment by 2010. And let me explain the significance of this ambition.

    If we meet our target to raise lone parent employment, this one success alone could reduce the number of British children living in poverty by around 300,000. And if we went even further to French levels we could reduce the number of children in poverty by a total of approaching half a million.

    Now research shows most lone parents would like to combine paid work with the vital job of being a parent. But they face real barriers to doing so.  And those who work with lone parents – and lone parents themselves – have rightly called on us to do more to help them get the skills they need for work and to ease the transition between income support and paid work.

    So while all lone parents are now invited in for work-focused interviews.  We are also piloting new lone parent ‘work discovery weeks’ – run by employers in London, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham – that are providing introductory and preparatory courses for work in some of our best known retail stores, hotels and companies —– and backed up by help with childcare.

    Where local employers identify a demand for skills lone parents in these six cities also have access to free NVQ level 3 training – and funds to buy work clothes or equipment.

    And because we recognise that the time of transition from benefits to employment can be difficult, from October lone parents will benefit from a new job grant of £250 when they move into work and they will enjoy a four week extension of housing benefit.

    So what does the success of our recent measures mean in practise for tackling child poverty? It means that with the new help with housing benefit, lone parents on a typical rent of £50 a week and working part time will receive at least £217 a week for around 16 hours work a week.

    The effective hourly rate is not the minimum wage of £4.50 but £13.50 an hour – making them far better off working part time than not working at all.

    And so we have come to recognise that central to tackling child poverty – as well as to the importance of helping families balance work and family life – is the provision of adequate child care.  And while we have since 1997 created over a million more child care places, the greatest help for low income families has been the third element of tax credits that we have introduced — the tax credit for covering the costs of child care – up to £95 each week for families with one child in qualifying childcare and up to £140 for those with two or more children.

    When we started in 1997 it was claimed by just 47,000 families, it is now benefiting 320,000, with maximum help given to lone parents.

    And while we ensure that by 2008 nearly 2.5 million children a year will have access to good quality childcare, again for poor families the next stage in the extension of the child care tax credit is of greatest importance – from April 2005 extended to a wider range of eligible childcare including, in some cases, at home.   And the tax credit will be supported by a new incentive for employers — to give their employees up to £50 a week, free of income tax and national insurance, to help with childcare costs.

    Public services

    So tax credits have been and will continue to be the key to tackling child poverty. But as a government we also have a duty and role to play in encouraging the development of the potential of Britain’s children through the provision of high quality public services – and Bruce Katz has this morning shown why one of our priorities must be to drive up the performance of public services in our most deprived neighbourhoods and thus break long established cycles of deprivation.  And I do not underestimate the critical role that new investment in housing can play.

    Of all the services that contribute to the development of potential a good education – the subject of the government’s five year plan today – is clearly the most fundamental. So as I announced in the budget we are investing over 3 years an additional £8.5 billion in education; raising average spending per pupil from the £2500 a year we inherited to £5500 by 2008 —- and, as a sign of our commitment to tackling disadvantage, by even more in the 1400 schools that benefit from our extra support for leadership and excellence to combat deprivation.

    We have, indeed, a long way to go in ensuing for today’s poor children a decent start in life but it is important to record that the greatest improvement so far in reading, writing and maths has been in the primary schools of the poorest areas.  And I can tell you that the next stage is to help at an early stage the very pupils most in danger of falling behind — and with extra money for their books, and their classrooms equipment and staffing drive up their literacy and numeracy.

    I can also inform you that secondary schools with more than 35 per cent of their 14 year olds eligible for free meals are now making the biggest gains in maths and science results at key stage 3.  Indeed the number of secondary schools with less than 25 per cent of their pupils achieving 5 or more good GCSEs has fallen from over 600 in 1997 to 224.  And today’s five year plan sets out our next steps – with the very pupils most in need offered more personalised learning including new vocational options and greater access to IT.

    I can tell you also that in the spending review, there will be new, more challenging floor targets for the poorest areas. And as part of the review of the local formulae used to distribute schools funding – due to take place later this year – I would like to identify even more effective ways to target resources at tackling deprivation: measures to help children in the bottom income quintile catch up, particularly in primary school, and measures to enable schools to meet the higher costs of educating children from poorer backgrounds who may have lower levels of early educational attainment and who may have far less parental support.

    Tragically Britain has, for decades, had one of the poorest staying on rates of the industrialised world. In Britain more young people leave school early, more leave without qualifications and more never reappear in the world of education.

    So again to tackle both poverty and lack of opportunity – and to seek to tackle perhaps an even greater challenge, the poverty of aspiration amongst children and young people and their parents – we have reformed the careers service, introduced summer schools, encouraged better links between schools and universities and colleges.  And we have piloted an education maintenance allowance:  up to £1500 a year on top of child benefit and the child tax credit for those young people who need financial help to stay on in education and get the qualifications they need. And so successful has the allowance been in raising staying on rates that from September this year it will be available nation wide.   And as it goes nationwide be made available not just for school and further education courses but for training too – once again helping all young people, but doing more for those who need help most so that no child is left behind.

    Services for under fives

    I said at the outset that while we are committed to social security from the cradle to the grave, too many children have already lost out within months of being born – condemned to poverty because not enough has been done to help them from the cradle to the nursery school.

    Indeed for fifty years while there was undoubtedly much innovation in the voluntary and charitable sector, welfare state support for the country’s youngest children consisted of maternity services, vaccinations and a requirement to appear at school at age 5.

    Yet while the provision remained inadequate the evidence grew that the first four years of a child’s life are critical to their personal development; that children who went to nursery or other early education before they attended school were likely to have significantly improved social, emotional and cognitive development; that the longer children attend pre-school – and the higher the quality of the service – the greater the positive influence; and that such intervention was particularly beneficial for the poorest children.

    And so it is clear that a strategy of counteracting disadvantage must begin right from the start of a child’s life and that the earliest years – once the lowest priority — are now rightly becoming among the highest priority: not just the biggest gap in provision and next frontier for us to cross, but one of the single most important investments the welfare state can make.

    The sure start maternity grant – once just £100 – has been raised to £500, a five fold rise in five years.

    Reversing a long standing policy that more child benefits went to older rather than younger children, we doubled the child tax credit for the first year of a child’s life.

    To help parents stay at home with their children, maternity leave and pay has been substantially extended and paternity pay now exists for the first time.

    And earlier than planned nursery education is now available for all 3 year olds as well as all four year olds.

    Now in the past to identify a problem – the need to expand provision for infants from birth to three   – would probably have led simply to the creation of a new state service.  But I believe that what today is happening in the area of under five provision shows how what we do – in the spirit of Rowntree – is based upon evidence; how the best approach is multi-dimensional – across the services – and the range of provision mixed; and how, instead of a narrow focus on what central government can do, voluntary and community organisations, and parents, and government, local and national, through not just one service but a range of services – child health services, social services, and early learning –  are now all part of the solution.

    I often say that sure start – led by Charles Clarke, David Blunkett and Margaret Hodge – is today one of the best kept secrets of government, but it is also one of the unsung successes of the voluntary and community sector.

    And there are now over 500 sure start or children’s centres providing services for 400,000 children across the country, including a third of all children under four living in poverty.  And you have only to visit local sure start projects – as I did in Bristol a few weeks ago and then in Birmingham last week – to capture a very real sense of the difference they are making: and already evidence from individual projects in some of Britain’s most deprived areas shows that sure start is having a notable effect on children’s language development and social skills, and on the interaction of parents and their children.

    What is then exciting about sure start and the approach it represents ?

    I believe that what is exciting is what Rowntree himself would have approved of – and what Rowntree Foundation research has pointed towards.

    First, a co-ordinated approach to services for families with young children, tackling the multi-dimensional causes of poverty – physical, intellectual, emotional and social – by adopting an integrated approach with childcare, early education and play, health services and family support at the core of sure start.

    It reflects a growing recognition that housing, health, transport social services, youth and many other services are vital in tackling child poverty and developing young people’s potential.  And the new public service agreements we will be publishing alongside our commitment to new investment for these services will reflect this.

    Second, the emphasis within this approach on health and inequality highlighted by today’s report of the health care commission.  And later this year there will be a new Public Health White Paper – refocusing our attention on preventive health – which will emphasise once more the importance of tackling the unacceptable health inequalities – including infant life chances – which distort our country.

    Third, sure start is emphasising the central role of parents in tackling child poverty – and that is why parents are enlisted in the very running of the sure start projects.

    We must never forget that it is parents who bring children up, not governments, and our emphasis is on the opportunities now available to parents and the responsibilities they must discharge.

    So we are not only increasing the financial support available to parents – and exploring options for future further increases in maternity and paternity pay – but making available wider support for parents, including expanding parenting classes and providing access to practical parenting advice in a wider range of locations.

    Fourth, the central role of voluntary community and charitable organisations from mothers and toddlers groups to the playgroup and child care movement to vast and impressive range of specialist organisations throughout our country. It is a humble recognition of the limits of government – that child poverty cannot be removed by the action of government alone but by government, working with parents, voluntary charitable and community organisations – and a celebration of the vital role of the voluntary and community sector in every city and town of our country. And let us not forget that alongside traditional voluntary organisations – like the churches and uniformed organisations for young people – that have been declining in numbers, there has been a mushrooming of young mothers groups, playgroups, and groups and clubs associated with children locally and nationally.

    And let us be clear about the radicalism of our approach.   For sure start also enacts an important new principle into action – that services for the under-fives not only involve voluntary and charitable action at a local level – even more so than we have done in the past – but either in partnership or in sole control, the very running of these local groups can be and is being passed to community control.

    And it is a recognition that, we must all accept our responsibilities as parents, neighbours, citizens and community leaders, in the battle against child poverty.

    And of course there is a fifth innovation:  the far greater emphasis on early learning – so early that it can start with the local school contacting the mother not in the months before the child’s fifth birthday but just a few weeks after the child is born – backed up by innovations like Bookstart offering children the books they might not otherwise have, to start in their first months to learn to read.

    And we can see now how combined with the improved income support for the under fives that I have described, the additional cash resources for early learning and the support for the specialist groups – many represented here – that deal with disability, special needs and other challenges, a new more comprehensive approach not just to tackling child poverty but to developing the potential of every child is taking shape.

    And as we approach the spending review next week and advance to the pre budget report, I can tell you that what I have described this morning can only be the start of what we have yet to do.

    Building on sure start, the next stage is to fund the creation of new children’s centres across the country – again providing a combination of good quality childcare, early years education, family support and health services.  By 2006 650,000 children will be covered by sure start or children’s centres. And there will be new funding – despite our other representations – to ensure 1700 children’s centres by 2008 – one in each of the 20 per cent most deprived wards in England, as we advance towards our goal of a children’s centre for every community.

    But sure start – and related services – point the way for a new agenda for services for young children:

    • Greater encouragement for local initiatives and community action in the war against child poverty;
    • Offering government money to back non-government initiatives to tackle disadvantage;
    • Partnership with both the biggest voluntary and community organisations and the smallest;
    • The emphasis on prevention not simply coping with failure;
    • Greater parental involvement in the running of services.

    And anyone who like me has attended a sure start conference – and seen the dynamism, energy and determination of parents, volunteers and carers in action – can begin to understand the transformative power that organisations from the playgroup movement to the child care campaigns can have. And I look forward to the little platoons in our communities becoming veritable armies demanding we do more.

    So new finance, like tax credits

    New initiatives, like the new deal for lone parents

    New dimensions, like support for child care

    New services, like sure start

    New approaches, whole services  managed by the voluntary sector

    New directions, engaging parents in the running of programmes.

    All weapons in the war against child poverty

    All evidence that parents, voluntary organisations and government can acting together make a real difference

    All evidence also that informed by knowledge, working with the best of caring organisations, public action can transform young lives.

    Go to a sure start programme, as I did a few days ago – and see the bright new investments that are starting to change the face of some of the most deprived areas of our country.

    Listen to a mother, once feeling trapped in her home, telling you how sure start has introduced her to other mothers with similar stories to tell.

    Hear the views of children of lone parents – telling of their pride that their mother now has a job.

    And hear the responses of parents on the child and working tax credits – describing how what they can spend on their children has been raised by £50 a week.

    And so I tell you. After seven years of government I am not less idealistic but more idealistic about what we can achieve working together.

    Because we now have evidence of what can be done by sure start in some areas of the country, we want to apply the lessons to all parts of the country. And because we have evidence of the good that is done for some children, then we want to extend these opportunities to all children.

    And what started, for us, seven years ago as an article of faith about what might be achieved is now a conviction based on clear evidence about what can and must be done.

    Because what has been done shows us what more can be done, because the evidence of small successes shows what even larger successes are possible, it must make us more even more ambitious to do more.

    So my experience of Government has not diminished my desire to tackle child poverty but made me more determined to do more.

    For what has happened so far does not begin to speak to the limits of our aspirations for developing the potential of Britain’s children, but challenges us to learn from the changes now being made and strive in future years to do even more.

    So on Monday I will be able to announce the next stage in our policies for tackling child poverty and for helping the development of the potential of every child – and I believe as a country we are ready to do more to tackle old injustices, meet new needs and solve new challenges.

    But what we can achieve depends upon the growth of a nationwide sentiment of opinion – indeed, a shared and concerted demand across communities, across social classes, across parties, across all decent minded people – that the eradication of child poverty is a cause that demands the priority, the resources, and the national attention it deserves.

    It is not usual for government to welcome the growth of pressure groups that will lobby, demonstrate, embarrass, expose and then push them to action. But I welcome the new alliance for children — the broad coalition of community organisations, voluntary and charitable sector determined to push further to end child poverty.

    For the emerging evidence – and the growth in a nationwide public opinion – emboldens me to believe it can indeed be this generation of campaigners, charity workers, child carers, sure start organisers, working together, that will right the social wrongs that impelled Joseph Rowntree to action and ensure every child has a fair start in life.

    So let us continue to follow the lead given by the pioneers who brought the Rowntree Foundation into being.

    And inspired by a generation of reformers like Rowntree who had a vision; driven forward – as the Rowntree Foundation has always been – by the evidence of what is happening around us; never loosing sight of the vision that inspired a whole generation; our eyes fixed firmly on the goal that if every child has the best start in life we can build a better Britain.

  • Jeremy Miles – 2022 Statement on the Outcome of the Education Ministers Council Meeting

    Jeremy Miles – 2022 Statement on the Outcome of the Education Ministers Council Meeting

    The statement made by Jeremy Miles, the Welsh Minister for Education and Welsh Language, on 23 December 2022.

    In accordance with the inter-institutional relations agreement, I can report I chaired the third meeting of the UK Education Ministers Council (UKEMC) on Friday 9 December at the Welsh Government Buildings in Cathays Park, Cardiff.

    Shirley-Anne Somerville MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills attended for the Scottish Government.  The Rt. Hon. Gillian Keegan MP, Secretary of State for Education attended for the UK Government and Mark Browne, Permanent Secretary to the Department for Education and Mark Lee, Director Tertiary Education represented Northern Ireland via video link.

    The group discussed challenges and recent developments in the areas of: the rising cost of living; general and vocational qualifications; and lifelong learning.

    Mike James, Chief Executive of Cardiff and Vale College, gave a presentation on the broad offer from the post-16 sector.

    Amongst other things I highlighted the work the Welsh Government has been doing on Universal Primary Free School Meals, the significant changes taking place in the qualifications landscape in Wales and my vision for Wales to be a second chance nation.

    It was agreed the UK Government will host the next meeting of the UKEMC.

    This statement is being issued during recess in order to keep members informed. Should members wish me to make a further statement or to answer questions on this when the Senedd returns I would be happy to do so.

  • Tom Hunt – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Funding for 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.

  • Nick Gibb – 2022 Statement on School Rebuilding

    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.

  • Zarah Sultana – 2022 Speech on Free Primary School Meals

    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.

  • Robert Halfon – 2022 Skills Update

    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.

  • Damian Green – 2001 Comments on the Education Bill

    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.

  • Nick Gibb – 2022 Speech on Ofsted School Inspections

    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.

  • Philip Hollobone – 2022 Speech on Ofsted School Inspections

    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?

  • Gillian Keegan – 2022 Statement on Capital Spending for Educational Establishments

    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.