Tag: 2011

  • Jonathan Hill – 2011 Speech to the SSAT Guildhall Reception

    Jonathan Hill – 2011 Speech to the SSAT Guildhall Reception

    The speech made by Jonathan Hill, Lord Hill, to the SSAT Guildhall Reception at the Guildhall in London on 20 January 2011.

    Thank you so much for that warm welcome. Having spent much of the last four days stuck camping away in the House of Lords in my sleeping bag. I can tell you that it is extremely nice to be here. It may seem a funny way to run the country, but at least – thanks to our sleeping arrangements – I can now say that I having finally slept with a member of the cabinet.

    The second thing to say is how very sorry the Secretary of State is not to be here. I know he has been looking forward to tonight and he has asked me to pass on his best wishes and to thank the SSAT and you for all you do.

    Apart from the change of scene, I consider myself very lucky to be here tonight with you, the real heroes and heroines of our education system, the people who are day to day helping out to lay the foundations for the better, fairer society which all of us want to create.

    No one becomes a teacher for fame or money. And no one gives up their time by becoming a governor or a school sponsor out of anything other than a deep sense that education is the means by which we enable children to enrich their lives and fulfil the limits of their potential.

    Over the eight months or so since I became a schools minister, I’ve developed a huge admiration for the work that all of you do.

    Your vision, passion, expertise and leadership is what ultimately will make much more difference than anything I can do in central government. Because in any system I can think of it is people who matter the most.

    So although an important part of my job is to do with structures, I am very clear that those changes are merely a means to an end. In a nutshell, what we are trying to do is to create the space for professionals to get on with what they do best and to allow people who are passionate about education and young people to make their contribution without feeling they are constantly having to wade through treacle.

    So I’m delighted to have the chance this evening to celebrate your achievements and, also, to say thank you.

    If this event is a celebration of the very best of our education system, I also want to recognise the role SSAT plays in it. I am grateful to them and to the work they have done in helping and supporting academies.

    Expanding the academies programme

    International evidence tells us very clearly that schools see fastest improvement where school leaders are given the greatest control over what happens in their schools.

    The near-universal network of specialist school shows what can be achieved when schools are allowed to innovate and have the freedom to develop their own distinct character and ethos.

    We want to remove the bureaucracy that surrounds specialist status so that all schools can decide how to develop their specialisms in the light of the total resources available to them.

    And more generally we want to extend the autonomy that schools can enjoy.

    That’s why the very first thing we did when we took office was to lift the brakes that had been placed on the academies programme and gradually open it up to all schools, including primaries and later this year special schools.

    The response has been very encouraging.

    There has been real enthusiasm in many schools to take advantage of the freedoms that academy status can bring.

    Why? Because they’ve recognised that it can help them to offer an ever-better standard of education.

    We now have well over 400 academies.

    More than one academy has opened every working day since the beginning of the school term in September.

    And the pace seems to be quickening. We had 129 new applications in the first week back in the New Year alone.

    What I am particularly excited about is the combination of autonomy and partnership that the Academies programme is opening up. We don’t want academies to be islands entire unto themselves to mis-quote John Donne. So one of the developments I am keen to encourage is applications from clusters or chains of schools – from groups of primaries, or primaries grouped around secondary as part of a dealing with the issue of transition.

    But there’s no way that we could have done what we’ve done – or what we want to do – without the support of many of the people in this room.

    The role of the SSAT and sponsors

    The SSAT has played a vital role helping schools that want to make the transition to academy status.

    I know that well over a thousand headteachers have attended the seminars that you’ve organised where they’ve been able to hear about the benefits of converting and about the experiences of those who have been through the process.

    The National Headteacher Steering Group has also provided us and prospective convertors with invaluable advice that has been crucial in allowing us to achieve this early momentum.

    There is no doubt that networks like those operated by the SSAT are the best way of spreading the word, telling it like it really is and developing the culture of collaboration in which schools help other schools to innovate, develop their staff and offer a better educational experience to young people.

    Expanding the academies programme also means there will be more opportunities for business people, charities, faith groups, successful schools, higher and further education institutions and other groups with a track-record of success in education to come forward as sponsors.

    I am keen to encourage more primary schools to convert to academy status and for more sponsors – both existing and new – with expertise of working with primary schools to come forward as sponsors.

    I hope more sponsors with an excellent track-record of working with schools to help them to innovate and improve will come forward. I know that the SSAT itself has exciting plans to become a sponsor, a move which I am keen to encourage. There are certainly plenty of outstanding role models here tonight for any one that wants to do so.

    It is only because of the often superhuman efforts of sponsors and school leaders that the specialist schools and academies programmes have been such successes.

    It is therefore only right that on a day like today we stop for a moment to celebrate the fantastic life-enhancing contributions that you make day in, day out across the country. And I would like to thank you for allowing me to be here to share in it with you.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Plans to end the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) programme [January 2011]

    PRESS RELEASE : Plans to end the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) programme [January 2011]

    The press release issued by the Department for Education on 19 January 2011.

    MPs will today vote on the Government’s plans to end the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for 16- to 18-year-old pupils in education or training. Colleges, schools and training providers will receive an enhanced discretionary learner fund so that they can target pupils most in need of financial support to stay in education post-16.

    A Department spokesperson said:

    Already 96 per cent of 16-year-olds and 94 per cent of 17-year-olds participate in education, employment or training. We are committed to going further still, to full participation for all young people up to the age of 18 by 2015.

    EMA is a hugely expensive programme, costing over £560 million a year with administration costs amounting to £36 million. Pilot evidence and more recent research from the National Foundation for Educational Research found that almost 90 per cent of young people receiving the EMA believed that they would still have participated in the courses they were doing if they had not received it.

    Young people currently receiving the EMA will continue to receive it for the rest of the academic year. However, they will not receive it next academic year.

    Currently £26 million per year is given to schools, colleges and training providers as a discretionary leaner support fund to enable them to make small payments to those young people who are most likely to drop out of education without support. After the EMA is abolished this fund will be significantly increased.

    Who is eligible for EMA and how much does it cost?

    EMA costs £560 million a year in England and is paid to 650,000 young people – 45 per cent of 16- to 18-year-olds in full time education. Around 80 per cent of those receive the highest rate of £30.

    In England there were three income thresholds based on household income as follows:

    • income of up to £20,817 per annum – £30 per week
    • income of £20,818 to £25,521 per annum – £20 per week
    • income of £25,522 to £30,810 per annum – £10 per week.

    Why have you made the decision to scrap the EMA?

    The deeply worrying state of the public finances has meant we have had to make some tough decisions. Having looked at all the facts it was decided at the time of the spending review that the EMA scheme had to be replaced.

    EMA costs over £560 million per year with administration costs amounting to £36 million. The Government believes it must target its resources to those most in need.

    Research commissioned by the last Government shows that almost 90 per cent of young people receiving the EMA said that they would still have participated in the courses they were doing if they had not received it (Barriers to Participation in Education and Training, the Department for Education, published 24 June 2010). It also shows that finance only stops a minority (four per cent) from doing what they want to do after leaving school.

    The same research also showed that the majority of young people (86 per cent) do not face any barriers that stop them from doing what they want to do at the end of Year 11.

    What will you do to support those that are at risk of dropping out of education because they need financial support?

    We are significantly increasing the £26 million learner support fund to help those most in need. This money is properly targeted to those who most need it and is distributed by individual colleges and schools who are on the ground and know the circumstances of their students far better than the Government does.

    How will students on EMA afford transport to and from college or sixth form?

    We recognise that transport costs in some areas can be expensive. Local authorities have a statutory duty to make sure that no young person in their area is prevented from attending education post-16 because of a lack of transport or support for it. If that duty is not being met then young people and families need to raise this with the local authority in the first instance.

    A new root and branch review of all school transport will start shortly and look at all these issues.

  • PRESS RELEASE : New Schools Commissioner announced as government demands action on school improvement [January 2011]

    PRESS RELEASE : New Schools Commissioner announced as government demands action on school improvement [January 2011]

    The press release issued by the Department for Education on 14 January 2011.

    Michael Gove today formally confirmed that Dr Elizabeth Sidwell, the highly respected headteacher and chief executive of the Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation of schools, will be the new schools commissioner.

    Following this week’s school performance tables there are now 216 secondary schools and 962 primary schools below the floor standard. Michael Gove will now challenge local authorities and schools to build on their current work and produce robust improvement plans to turn around schools which are underperforming. Many will benefit from becoming academies, and Dr Sidwell will engage with schools, local authorities and potential sponsors so that more academies replace schools that are underperforming. Her role will be to:

    • broker academy arrangements between schools that would benefit most from an academy solution and established sponsors with a good track record of performance improvement
    • encourage and recruit more potential academy sponsors
    • enthuse leaders of good schools to go for academy status
    • raise the profile of Free Schools among prospective proposers.

    Welcoming Dr Sidwell to her new post, Education Secretary Michael Gove said:

    There are few people in the education world with the pedigree and quality of Elizabeth Sidwell. She has been at the forefront of education policy for over 20 years, first as head of the brilliantly successful Hatcham College, one of the most popular schools in the country, and more recently taking on underperforming schools through the Academy programme.

    She will be an excellent schools commissioner, using her credibility and knowledge to go round the country, speaking to local authorities, and challenging them and their schools to come up with robust plans for improving.

    I know that Elizabeth will be fair, but not shy away from recommending strong solutions, such as academy status, to those schools who are not making good enough progress.

    There are still too many schools below the floor target, and the Government will not blink when it comes to standing up for the rights of children to get a better education.

    Dr Sidwell said today that:

    It is a tremendous honour to be schools commissioner for England. After 20 years of running schools I am very excited at the prospect of working at a national level to help drive something that all of us want to see – more good schools for all of our pupils, regardless of their background.

    I know how great the challenge is in some areas. I know how dedicated and hardworking teachers are across the country – desperately trying to improve their schools. I want those teachers to know that I’m on their side.

    However, I will not shy away from confronting failure, and I will be honest when I don’t think schools are improving fast enough. My direct experience of transforming a good school to great, turning round a seriously failing school, transforming primaries and setting up a new school means I am not asking anyone to do what I, and others across the country, have not already done.

    The Coalition Government introduced new floor standards for schools in November’s Schools White Paper. These new standards, which are higher but fairer than previous targets, require schools to be above certain attainment levels and also have pupils making at least average progress between Key Stage levels in English and mathematics. For secondary schools the new attainment target is 35 per cent of pupils getting five GCSEs at A* to C including English and mathematics, and in primary schools the requirement is 60 per cent of pupils achieve level 4 in English and mathematics at Key Stage 2.

    The schools commissioner post was created in the 2006 Education and Inspections Act, and was formerly held by Sir Bruce Liddington.

    Notes to editors

    Dr Liz Sidwell is currently chief executive of the Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation in South London. She was formerly principal of Haberdashers’ Hatcham College in Lewisham, which was rated outstanding by Ofsted. It is also one of the most oversubscribed schools in London, with 12 applications for every place. In 2005 Dr Sidwell led the federation of Hatcham College with the Mallory School, an underperforming school, which became Haberdashers’ Knights Academy. Since becoming part of the federation, results have risen by over 30 percentage points from a start of less than 7 per cent of pupils getting five or more good GCSEs, and Ofsted has said the school is ‘a rapidly improving school that provides a good education for its students’.

  • Nick Gibb – 2011 Speech to the North of England Education Conference

    Nick Gibb – 2011 Speech to the North of England Education Conference

    The speech made by Nick Gibb, the then Minister of State for Schools, on 11 January 2011.

    The timing of the conference could not be better, with the white paper published at the end of November and the Education Bill to be published shortly.

    And the theme ‘Our World, Our Future’ could not be more appropriate.

    The context in which this conference is held is dominated by global factors – the growing dominance of the emerging economies of China and India; the global economic crisis; and the indebtedness of nations that during the boom years overspent and are now on the brink of financial collapse, as the global capital markets no longer regard them or sovereign debt as risk-free investments.

    Greece and Ireland are still teetering as they struggle with their structural deficits. And it is to avoid that fate that the Coalition Government has had to take some very difficult decisions.

    It’s not comfortable being a minister in a spending department in the midst of these problems, having to take decisions to reduce and refocus programmes on those in most need – programmes such as the Education Maintenance Allowance. And I know it isn’t comfortable either for those involved in local government, facing similar pressures.

    But it would be far worse to see our country’s economy plunge into crisis, as would happen if we failed to tackle our massive structural deficit. This year alone will see £156 billion added to our national debt, with an interest charge of £120 million every single day – enough to build 10 new primary schools.

    The independent Office for Budget Responsibility reports that without any further action to tackle the deficit, interest payments would rise to a staggering £67 billion a year by 2014-15. That’s almost two years’ total spending on schools: twice what we spend on the salaries of every teacher in England, twice what we spend running every state school in the country – just to pay the interest on the debt.

    And that all assumes, of course, that the capital markets would be willing to lend us these huge sums, which the experience of Greece and Ireland demonstrates that they would not. The longer the economy languishes in crisis, the later the economic recovery and the jobs that are so desperately needed, particularly for young people – the group who bear the brunt of a stagnant economy as companies freeze recruitment.

    But the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury do understand the importance of education to that recovery and to the long-term prosperity of this country.

    Education is a key priority for the Government which is why the Department for Education secured one of the best settlements in Whitehall.

    Spending on schools will remain at flat cash per pupil over the course of the spending review period, which means there will be extra cash for demographic increases in the school population.

    And on top of this will be the Pupil Premium, extra money for each pupil who qualifies for free school meals. This will amount to £430 per pupil in this coming financial year but will rise significantly over the next four years, to some £2.5 billion a year by 2014-15.

    But although we have secured the best possible settlement it still requires us to find cuts in the overall departmental budget of 3.4 per cent by 2014-15.

    Our approach has been to ensure we protect school budgets, while devolving as much autonomy as we can to headteachers by collapsing numerous funding streams into the main schools grant. We’re also giving local government far greater autonomy – streamlining 45 local government grants into just four funding streams.

    To ensure schools do receive this cash, we have had to take some difficult decisions over centralised programmes and ask ourselves this question: given that we have secured the very best possible settlement we could hope to have achieved from the Treasury and given the budget deficit, do we continue with a particular central programme and slice off a little from the amount we want to give to schools? Or do we end the programme and ensure that schools have that cash?

    Each programme has its supporters. Most of these programmes achieve things. Some – but not all – are good value for money.

    The problem is that the money isn’t there.

    Greater autonomy

    Our approach to spending – devolving as much control over limited resources as possible to the front line, to headteachers in particular – is the same approach that we take to education policy generally.

    Research from the OECD cites autonomy, combined with rigorous and objective external accountability, as the essential characteristics of the highest-performing education jurisdictions in the world.

    That’s the reasoning behind our drive to increase the autonomy of schools through expanding the academies programme and giving teachers and headteachers more control over their own destiny.

    We have always supported Labour’s Academy programme and pay tribute to the energy and commitment of Lord Adonis as Schools Minister in developing this policy and transforming so many schools.

    In the seven months since we came into office we’ve doubled the number of academies and hundreds more schools have applied to convert later in 2011.

    And we will support teachers, charities, parent groups and education foundations who have the vision and drive to open Free Schools where there is parental demand, particularly in areas of deprivation where poor provision is especially acute.

    And I hope that we can persuade some of the trade unions that Free Schools offer a real opportunity for teachers to put their professional expertise into practice. We would be delighted to see one or more of the teaching unions setting up their own Free Schools. They would certainly have our active support if they sought to do so.

    The case for change

    At the end of November we published our White Paper, entitled The Importance of Teaching, reflecting the earnestness of our desire to raise the status of the teaching profession and to return teaching to the centre of what happens in our schools.

    The theme of this conference, ‘Our World, Our Future’ is the right theme for an education conference, reflecting, as it does, the way today’s education system will determine the society we will have in 20 or 30 years’ time. It is a cliche to say that we live in a global economy. But like most cliches it reveals a truth, that young people will now be competing for jobs and income with the best-educated people not just in this country but from around the world.

    Which is why we need an education system that is on a par with the best in the world. And although we have some of the best schools in the world, the truth is that we also have too many that are still struggling.

    The attainment gap between rich and poor remains enormous – a gap we are determined to narrow and ultimately close; there are still too many weak schools in deprived areas; and teaching is rated by Ofsted as no better than satisfactory in half our schools.

    In 2010, 54.8 per cent achieved 5 or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths. But of those eligible for free school meals just 30.9 per cent achieved this standard. And the gap between these two figures has remained stubbornly constant in recent years.

    In the OECD international performance table we’ve fallen from 4th in the year 2000 to 16th in science, from 7th to 25th in literacy, and from 8th to 28th in maths. The survey also showed that 15-year-olds in Shanghai, China, are two years ahead of our children in maths, and that 15-year-olds in Finland are two years ahead in literacy.

    Studies undertaken by Unicef and the OECD tell us that we have one of the most unequal education systems in the world, coming 55th out of 57 countries for educational equity and with one of the biggest gulfs between independent and state schools of any developed nation.

    And so our White Paper reform programme, and the Education Bill implementing that programme, is geared around the same simple truth that all leading systems share – that high-quality teaching is the single biggest determinant of a pupil’s achievement.

    The latest McKinsey report, Capturing the Leadership Premium about how the world’s top school systems are building leadership capacity, cites a number of studies from North America, one of which found that:

    … nearly 60 per cent of a school’s impact on student achievement is attributable to principal and teacher effectiveness. These are the most important in-school factors driving school success, with principals accounting for 25 per cent and teachers 33 per cent of a school’s total impact on achievement.

    Also in the McKinsey report, there’s an analysis of Ofsted inspection reports which concludes that:

    For every 100 schools that have good leadership and management, 93 will have good standards of student achievement. For every 100 schools that do not have good leadership and management, only one will have good standards of achievement.

    This is why the constant theme of the White Paper is the central importance, above all else, of the teaching profession and what we can do to ensure every child has access to the best possible teaching.

    Every single one of our reforms should be judged on how it equips teachers to do their job better – expanding the academy programme; encouraging new providers to galvanize and innovate; rigorous recruitment and training; strong discipline powers; a slimmed-down curriculum; robust assessment and inspection; and the Pupil Premium.

    Greater freedom

    We have some of the best headteachers and teachers working in our schools. But too often they say they’re constrained by needless bureaucracy, central targets and guidance, and an overly prescriptive curriculum that dictates, for example, that lessons should be in three parts, with a beginning, middle and end.

    We will slim down the National Curriculum. At present, the National Curriculum contains too much that is not essential, too much that is unclear and too much prescription about how to teach. Instead, it needs to be a tighter, more rigorous model of the knowledge which every child should be expected to master in core subjects at each key stage, to be a benchmark against which schools can be judged rather than a prescriptive straitjacket into which education is squeezed.

    Alongside greater control over budgets, we’ve scrapped the burdensome Self Evaluation Forms for school inspections and the overly bureaucratic Financial Management Standard in Schools.

    We are also committed to reducing central bureaucracy still further, cutting down on unnecessary data collection burdens and reforming Ofsted so that inspection is more proportionate, with fewer inspection criteria: instead of the 17 we will have just four – leadership, teaching, achievement and behaviour.

    Reading

    What underlies an effective education is the ability to read.

    Despite the hard work of teachers there are still too many children who fail to master this basic skill to a level that gives them the key to secondary education.

    15 per cent of seven-year-olds don’t reach the expected level in reading at Key Stage 1. One in five 11-year-olds leave primary school still struggling with English.

    And I’ve been to too many secondary schools where heads tell me that a significant minority of their intake has a reading age below nine or eight or sometimes six or seven.

    We need to identify early on those children who are struggling so they don’t slip through the net and so that schools can give those children the support and help they need.

    That is why we are introducing a new light-touch, phonics-based reading check for six-year-olds to ensure all children are on track with literacy at an early age.

    School improvement

    And because we understand why schools might have felt that the system – and Government – hasn’t been on their side in the past, there are also new measures in the White Paper to improve the exclusions process; ensuring that violent children cannot be reinstated against the wishes of the school, while improving alternative provision – and measures to protect teachers from malicious allegations by pupils and parents; including anonymity until charged with an offence.

    We want to move away from the top-down approach to education policy. That’s why we’re now giving schools the primary responsibility for their own improvement.

    This is not cutting schools adrift to let them sink or swim, as some claim. We will still set high minimum expectations for schools. For secondary schools, this means, at least 35 per cent of pupils with 5 or more GCSEs at grades A* to C including English and maths. And for primary schools, 60 per cent of the cohort achieving level 4 in English and maths combined and where progress is below the expected level. Crucially, both of these new floor standards will involve a progression measure as well as the raw attainment figure.

    But the onus should be on heads themselves to drive up standards, working together and drawing on the own wealth of expertise, experience, leadership and capacity within the system – without needing central government to mandate it through continual targets, ring-fenced grants and field forces.

    A culture of collaboration

    We believe that collaboration between schools and within the profession is a better and more effective means of school improvement than the top-down approach.

    The very best school leaders are characterised by their refusal to put a cap on aspiration for children and, consequently, tend to be those who are working in more than one school.

    This might mean that they’re an executive head in a federation where they lead two or more schools.

    It might now mean they’re an academy principal in an outstanding school working with another school to help them improve.

    Or it might mean they’re a national or local leader of education. I’m a huge admirer of all those heads who are NLEs or LLEs. They’re demonstrating that they want to go the extra mile to improve standards; not just for the children in their own schools, but in other schools too.

    That’s why we want to double the number of NLEs and will designate 1,000 over the next four years.

    We’re building a network of teaching schools.

    And we’re putting in place incentives for schools to work together – with a new £110 million Education Endowment Fund to encourage innovative approaches and inviting applications from schools and local authorities.

    We will also establish a new collaboration incentive worth £35 million a year to help schools support weaker schools.

    Role of local government

    I’ve been asked many times about the role of local authorities in a more autonomous school system, particularly as the number of academies continues to grow.

    We are clear that local authorities have a crucial role to play – as champions of children and parents, to ensure the school system works for every family; using their democratic mandate to challenge underperformance; and to ensure fair access to all schools for every child through the admissions system.

    The Secretary of State has established a ministerial advisory group with representatives from local government and education to work through what this means in practice – that local authorities would take action if there are concerns about the performance of any school in the area, using their intervention powers to act early to secure improvement in their own maintained schools.

    And where a local authority has concerns about an academy, it will be able to ask Ofsted to inspect the school and will, as now, be able to pursue those concerns with the Secretary of State.

    Conclusion

    There is a lot more I could talk about.

    But what I hope I have been able to demonstrate today is the seriousness with which we take education reform.

    And that at the core of that reform is the objective of closing the attainment gap between those from the wealthiest and poorest backgrounds.

    Deprivation should not mean destiny and it is ending that link that lies behind the urgency of our reforms.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Letter from Michael Gove on music teaching [January 2011]

    PRESS RELEASE : Letter from Michael Gove on music teaching [January 2011]

    The press release issued by the Department for Education on 7 January 2011.

    Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, has written to the NSPCC, the Musicians Union, Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music and Youth Music in response to their advice to music teachers to avoid any physical contact with children.

    Michael Gove writes:

    By telling your music teachers that they should avoid any physical contact with children, it sends out completely the wrong message. It plays to a culture of fear among both adults and children, reinforcing the message that any adult who touches a child is somehow guilty of inappropriate contact. We must move away from this presumption and the Department for Education is taking steps to restore common sense to this whole area.

  • PRESS RELEASE : The Department for Education responds to Ofsted’s report on science [January 2011]

    PRESS RELEASE : The Department for Education responds to Ofsted’s report on science [January 2011]

    The press release issued by the Department for Education on 7 January 2011.

    Ofsted has today published an evaluation of science education in schools and colleges in England from 2007 to 2010. Responding to the report’s findings, Schools Minister Nick Gibb said:

    Science is a critically important subject for this country which needs to be taught by those with knowledge and flair. It is good that many schools are providing pupils with an excellent science education, but it is disappointing that some of our brightest pupils are being held back because of a lack of expertise. The recent PISA study also gives cause for concern, with England slipping down the international league tables in science – from 4th in 2000 to 16th in 2009.

    As Ofsted points out, teachers must be properly equipped with the right skills and knowledge if standards in our schools are to improve. Our recent White Paper outlines how we will do this – by creating more opportunities for teachers to learn from each other and by building a new cadre of teaching schools, which will act as local centres of excellence in teacher training and development.

    We will also review the National Curriculum to make sure pupils are properly equipped for further study. The introduction of the new English Baccalaureate, which will include science GCSEs, will also provide a powerful incentive for schools to drive participation in science at GCSE and beyond.

    We hope all schools and FE colleges will learn from the best practice shown in this report to drive improvement in science education.

  • PRESS RELEASE : 400 academies now open [January 2011]

    PRESS RELEASE : 400 academies now open [January 2011]

    The press release issued by the Department for Education on 6 January 2011.

    Figures released today show momentum is building for the government’s flagship school reform. The government announced today that

    • there are now 407 academies open in England
    • 371 secondary schools are now academies – 11 per cent of all secondary schools in England.
    • 204 academies have opened since September 2010 under the coalition government, with 46 opening this week alone. Of these, 136 were schools converting to becoming academies that will now use their academy freedoms to support weaker schools. Sixty-eight were weaker schools that had been granted academy status and new sponsors to help them turn round underperformance
    • at least one school has converted to become an academy every school day since September
    • an additional 254 more schools are in the pipeline having applied to become academies, with more applications coming in every week
    • Sixty-four schools applied to become academies in the last week before Christmas alone
    • it took 4 years to open the first 27 academies. It took 5 years to open 15 city technology colleges.

    In addition, the Department for Education is working with academy sponsors who have targeted underperforming schools. Plans are advanced to reopen these schools as academies in the coming academic year.

    Michael Gove today congratulated the schools becoming academies this term:

    I am delighted that more schools are opening as academies this week, and are now free from central and local bureaucratic control.

    Schools are taking up our offer to become academies because they recognise the huge benefits of being an academy – more autonomy, more power to teachers, and an opportunity to thrive, free from interference from government.

    The Coalition believes that headteachers and teachers – not politicians and bureaucrats – know best how to run schools. That’s why all school now have the opportunity to become academies, with stronger schools supporting weaker ones.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Nick Gibb responds to ‘Daily Telegraph’ article on exclusions [January 2011]

    PRESS RELEASE : Nick Gibb responds to ‘Daily Telegraph’ article on exclusions [January 2011]

    The press release issued by the Department for Education on 3 January 2011.

    Dear Sir

    Your thoughtful leader (3 January 2011) on behaviour in schools points out the radical changes we are making to restore the authority of teachers and headteachers by strengthening their powers to search pupils, issue detentions and use force where necessary.

    However, it is wrong to say that we are making it more difficult for headteachers to exclude unruly pupils. In fact, we are increasing the powers headteachers have to exclude by ensuring that pupils cannot be reinstated against a school’s wishes.

    You are right to point out that we are also piloting a new system to help pupils who have been expelled. Schools will have the power, additional money and responsibility to secure alternative education for these pupils. We don’t believe this will act as a deterrent to exclusion. Many headteachers are wary of expelling disruptive pupils for fear of the poor quality of alternative provision. By improving that alternative it will be easier for heads to exclude those pupils who need more specialised help to tackle their behavioural problems.

    Yours faithfully

    Nick Gibb
    Minister of State for Schools

  • Paul Stephenson – 2011 Resignation Statement from the Met Police

    Paul Stephenson – 2011 Resignation Statement from the Met Police

    The statement made by Sir Paul Stephenson, the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, on 17 July 2011.

    I have this afternoon informed the Palace, Home Secretary and the Mayor of my intention to resign as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service.

    I have taken this decision as a consequence of the ongoing speculation and accusations relating to the Met’s links with News International at a senior level and in particular in relation to Mr Neil Wallis who as you know was arrested in connection with Operation Weeting last week.

    Firstly, I want to say what an enormous privilege it has been for me to lead this great organisation that is the Met. The recent example of the heroism and bravery of Met officers in chasing armed suspects, involving the shooting of one of my officers, is typical; but is in danger of being eclipsed by the ongoing debate about relationships between senior officers and the media. This can never be right.

    Crime levels in the Met are at a ten year low. You have seen the Met at its glorious and unobtrusive best on the occasion of the royal wedding; the professional and restrained approach to unexpected levels of violence in recent student demonstrations; the vital ongoing work to secure the safety of the capital from terrorism; the reductions in homicide; and continuing increased levels of confidence as the jewel in our crown of Safer Neighbourhoods Teams serve the needs of Londoners.

    I am deeply proud of the achievements of the Met since I became Commissioner.

    Let me turn to phone hacking and my relationship with Neil Wallis. I want to put the record straight.

    I met Mr Wallis in 2006. The purpose of that meeting was, as with other journalists, to represent the context of policing and to better inform the public debate carried out through the media on policing issues.

    I had no knowledge of, or involvement in, the original investigation into phone hacking in 2006 that successfully led to the conviction and imprisonment of two men. I had no reason to believe this was anything other than a successful investigation. I was unaware that there were any other documents in our possession of the nature that have now emerged.

    I have acknowledged the statement by John Yates that if he had known then what he knows now he would have made different decisions.

    My relationship with Mr Wallis continued over the following years and the frequency of our meetings is a matter of public record. The record clearly accords with my description of the relationship as one maintained for professional purposes and an acquaintance.

    In 2009 the Met entered into a contractual arrangement with Neil Wallis, terminating in 2010. I played no role in the letting or management of that contract.

    I have heard suggestions that we must have suspected the alleged involvement of Mr Wallis in phone hacking. Let me say unequivocally that I did not and had no reason to have done so. I do not occupy a position in the world of journalism; I had no knowledge of the extent of this disgraceful practice and the repugnant nature of the selection of victims that is now emerging; nor of its apparent reach into senior levels. I saw senior figures from News International providing evidence that the misbehaviour was confined to a rogue few and not known about at the top.

    One can only wonder about the motives of those within the newspaper industry or beyond, who now claim that they did know but kept quiet. Though mine and the Met’s current severe discomfort is a consequence of those few that did speak out, I am grateful to them for doing so, giving us the opportunity to right the wrong done to victims – and here I think most of those especially vulnerable people who deserved so much better from us all.

    Now let me turn to the suspicion that the contractual relationship with Mr Wallis was somehow kept secret. The contracting of Mr Wallis only became of relevance when his name became linked with the new investigation into phone hacking. I recognise that the interests of transparency might have made earlier disclosure of this information desirable. However my priority, despite the embarrassment it might cause, has been to maintain the integrity of Operation Weeting. To make it public would have immediately tainted him and potentially compromised any future Operation Weeting action.

    Now let me turn to the reported displeasure of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary of the relationship with Mr Wallis.

    The reasons for not having told them are two fold. Firstly, I repeat my earlier comments of having at the time no reason for considering the contractual relationship to be a matter of concern. Unlike Mr Coulson, Mr Wallis had not resigned from News of the World or, to the best of my knowledge been in any way associated with the original phone hacking investigation.

    Secondly, once Mr Wallis’s name did become associated with Operation Weeting, I did not want to compromise the Prime Minister in any way by revealing or discussing a potential suspect who clearly had a close relationship with Mr Coulson. I am aware of the many political exchanges in relation to Mr Coulson’s previous employment – I believe it would have been extraordinarily clumsy of me to have exposed the Prime Minister, or by association the Home Secretary, to any accusation, however unfair, as a consequence of them being in possession of operational information in this regard. Similarly, the Mayor. Because of the individuals involved, their positions and relationships, these were I believe unique circumstances.

    Consequently, we informed the Chair of the MPA, Mr Malthouse, of the Met’s contractual arrangements with Mr Wallis on the morning of the latter’s arrest. It is our practice not to release the names of suspects under arrest, making it difficult to make public details of the arrangements prior to Mr Wallis’s release the same day. The timing of the MPA Committee that I appeared before at 2pm that day was most unfortunate.

    Now let me briefly deal with the recent story in relation to my use of Champney’s facilities. There has been no impropriety and I am extremely happy with what I did and the reasons for it – to do everything possible to return to running the Met full time, significantly ahead of medical, family and friends’ advice. The attempt to represent this in a negative way is both cynical and disappointing.

    I thought it necessary to provide this lengthy and detailed account of my position on aspects of the current media questions and speculation concerning my conduct. I do this to provide the backcloth to the main purpose of this statement.

    There are a great number of things I value as part of my professional life – very high in this list are my reputation for judgement and integrity.

    On judgement: running a large and overwhelmingly successful organisation like the Met must be dependent to a great extent on others providing the right information and assurances. I could reiterate that I had no reason to doubt the original investigation into phone hacking or be aware of the documents and information in our possession and only recently provided by News International. I could point to the many other successes of the Met. I could point to the long history of how and why the relationship between the Met and media has developed a way of doing business that has brought real benefits but perhaps runs the risk of misinterpretation or worse. In this particular regard it is clear to me that the current furore marks a point in time, a need to learn and change.

    However, as Commissioner I carry ultimate responsibility for the position we find ourselves in. With hindsight, I wish we had judged some matters involved in this affair differently. I didn’t and that’s it.

    I do not believe this on its own would be a matter for me to consider my position as Commissioner.

    However, the issue of my integrity is different. Let me state clearly, I and the people who know me know that my integrity is completely intact. I may wish we had done some things differently, but I will not lose sleep over my personal integrity.

    Nevertheless, I must accept that the intense media coverage, questions, commentary and indeed allegations, as demonstrated by this weekend’s attempt to misrepresent my arrangements for my recovery from illness, not only provide excessive distraction both for myself and colleagues, but are likely to continue for some time. In particular the Public Inquiry must take time, with even the first part scheduled not to report within a year. A year in which the Met must face not only the enormous challenges that are the staple diet of this incredible organisation, but also the Olympics.

    This is not a 12 months that can afford any doubts about the Commissioner of the Met, I have seen at first hand the distractions for this organisation when the story becomes about the leaders as opposed to what we do as a service. I was always clear that I would never allow that. We the Met cannot afford this – not this year.

    If I stayed I know that the Inquiry outcomes would reaffirm my personal integrity. But time is short before we face the enormous challenge of policing the Olympics – this is not the time for ongoing speculation about the security of the position of the Commissioner. Even a small chance that that there could be a change of leadership must be avoided.

    Therefore, although I have received continued personal support from both the Home Secretary and the Mayor, I have with great sadness informed both of my intention to resign. This will allow time for the appointment of my successor and for that person to take a firm hold of the helm of this great organisation and steer it through the great challenges and necessary change ahead, unencumbered by the current controversy. I will miss many things, but most of all it will be the overwhelming majority of honest, hard working professionals who it has been such a great pleasure to lead.

  • Owen Paterson – 2011 Statement on the Robert Hamill Inquiry

    Owen Paterson – 2011 Statement on the Robert Hamill Inquiry

    The statement made by Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 28 February 2011.

    In my written statement of the 31 January 2011, I informed the House that following an announcement by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland that they planned to prosecute three individuals in connection with the death of Robert Hamill, I would not publish the report of the Robert Hamill Inquiry until these legal proceedings had concluded. Publishing the report while proceedings are ongoing would jeopardise the individuals’ right to a fair trial.

    I also set out the checking process which is required to meet the obligations on me in relation to Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in relation to national security. I can confirm that this checking process has now been completed and I have received advice from the checking team which confirms that there is nothing in the report which, if published, could breach Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights by putting the lives or safety of individuals at risk, or put national security at risk. I am therefore satisfied that once legal proceedings have concluded, the report can be published in full. I have advised Sir Edwin Jowitt, the chairman of the inquiry, of this.

    I have also asked Sir Edwin to retain formal custody of the report in a secure location until the legal proceedings have concluded and it can be submitted to me and be published. The report has not been shown to me or to any other member of the government, or to any officials except the two members of the team which carried out the checking process. I have not been briefed on the contents of the report, nor have any officials other than those in the checking team.

    Again, I reassure the House that once the legal proceedings have concluded, I intend to publish the report in full and as soon as practicable. Once a timetable for publication becomes clear, I will update the House accordingly.