UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2012

  • Liam Byrne – 2012 Speech on New Foundations for a New Beveridge – The Right and Responsibility to Work

    Liam Byrne – 2012 Speech on New Foundations for a New Beveridge – The Right and Responsibility to Work

    The speech made by Liam Byrne at the Joseph Chamberlain College in Birmingham on 9 March 2012.

    Can I start by thanking the principal, the teachers, the students of Joseph Chamberlain College for inviting me to speak this morning.

    There is no better place than here to begin a series of speeches to mark the 70th anniversary of the Beveridge report.

    Your college memorialises a man who did more than anyone in the 19th century to pioneer a tradition of doing things together; a tradition of public enterprise.

    In that sense the first foundation for Beveridge can be traced to the man elected 139 years ago with the words, “In 12 months by God’s help the town shall not know itself.”

    He set an incredible pace. Water and gas municipalized. The art gallery founded. Corporation Street remodelled. Slums cleared. Public Health championed. The school board formed.

    Chamberlain was clear: “The power of life and death shall not be in the hands of the commercial company, but should be conducted by the representatives of the people.”

    William Beveridge would have recognised Joseph Chamberlain as a decisive influence.

    And I think that we are here today marking the 70th anniversary of his report, tells us that William Beveridge got an awful lot of things right.

    All good anniversaries prompt a bit of self-reflection.

    This anniversary should be no different.

    So I hope that in this year we can begin to debate how we go back to the Beveridge’s first principles and ask ourselves: how is it that we can apply those ideas – and those ideals – to the changed world of the 21st century?

    I suppose at the outset, I should declare an interest.

    My life was irrevocably shaped by the 1945 administration which took office 25 years before I was born. An administration led by Labour leaders’ to whose tradition I belong.

    The practical idealists of Labour’s history; leaders like Bevin, like Morrison, and Attlee.

    These were the leaders who fashioned a welfare state into which my parents were born; a welfare state that educated them, that gave my father, the first in his generation, the chance to go to university.

    That inspired them with the ethos of public service in which they spent their careers, that helped our city expand.

    With the architecture, the schools, the health centres, the libraries, the art, the ideas that re-shaped for the better the constituency it has been my privilege to serve these last eight years.

    So, what of the report we celebrate this year?

    It’s story, the tale of Beveridge’s famous, eponymous report is rightly, widely known.

    The key events took place 70 years ago this year. Beveridge allegedly wept when he was appointed.

    He wanted to be in charge of manpower on the Home Front, organising to defeat the Nazis. But Ernest Bevin, his minister was told in no uncertain times by his officials that the man was impossible to work with.

    So Bevin recommended him to Arthur Greenwood to lead his enquiry into social insurance

    And Beveridge did not take long to seize the moment.

    Over the first 9 months of 1942, he took evidence from 127 individuals, pressure-groups and lobbyists

    By April, Home Intelligence was reporting Beveridge’s idea of an all-in social insurance scheme was popular.

    By May, the Labour Party passed a resolution calling for one comprehensive scheme of cash payments for emergencies, family allowances and a NHS.

    By July, Beveridge unveiled his five giants to the Engineering Industries Association.

    By the summer, he had struck a ‘deal’ with Keynes to enlist his support, undertaking to keep costs down to £100m for the first 5 years.

    Finally, after a little to-ing and fro-ing, from dawn on 1 December 1942, the BBC began broadcasting details of his plan in 22 different languages.

    Timing, as they say, is everything in politics – and Beveridge’s timing was perfect.

    In November 1942, the Allies had beaten Rommel in the Battle of Egypt, counter-attacked in Stalingrad and secured the Pacific base of Guadalcanal in the a decisive naval battle.

    It was not as Churchill said on 10th November 1942, the beginning of the end.

    But it was the end of the beginning.

    Interest in what it was the country was fighting for hit a new high, and that interest swept the Beveridge Report off the shelves.

    It became almost immediately the most popular government publication until the Profumo report.

    635,000 copies were sold. 86 per cent said it should be implemented. The Manchester Guardian called it a ‘fine thing’.

    And with publication of the plan, came the debate about what next…

    Your tradition is not simply about the search for truth; it is for the search for action.

    Ideas alone are nice; but ideas with action can change the world.

    Crucially, as 1942 gave way to 1943, the Beveridge report was connected with the power-train of action, the mainspring, the animating force; and that was the force of full employment.

    Full employment would become the foundation on which the report itself would be delivered, and without which it would have proved a dream.

    The Cabinet did not discuss the report until January 1943, when Churchill was away in Casablanca.

    Before the Cabinet met, Attlee told newspapers ‘social security to us can only mean socialism’.

    He minuted Churchill to say planning for Beveridge must begin; ‘I am certain’ he wrote ‘that unless the government is prepared to be as courageous in planning for peace as it has been in carrying on the war, there us extreme danger of disaster when the war ends’. ‘Mere preparation of paper schemes’ was not enough.

    But the Cabinet concluded, there broke an intense debate, about the extent to which a war-fighting government could advance a peace-time plan. The Parliamentary Labour Party was determined to force the question.

    In February 1943, the debate in the House of Commons, saw 97 Labour MP’s rebel. In his last vote, David Lloyd George, voted to advance the welfare state he had helped to create.

    The following month, Churchill relented.

    He gave the green-light for a powerful Reconstruction Committee to be established, with as he put it: ‘a solid mass of four socialist politicians of the highest quality and authority’.

    It was here, here amongst this group of politicians that the fusion between Beveridge and ideal of full employment began to take shape.

    Beveridge himself took close interest in its work.

    After his report published, the war cabinet economists had begun to construct Keynesian solution to question of the central question of employment. They presented ideas to the new Reconstruction Committee in January 1944.

    It was now, that Ernie Bevin, supported by Hugh Dalton began to drive through the ideas that would become the famous White Paper on Full Employment of 1944.

    Bevin became a driving force in Reconstruction Committee. He missed just 6 of its 98 meetings. His interest in the question of full employment was long-standing. It was profoundly shaped by the experience of the 1930s.

    From late 1941 and early 1942, Bevin had begun thinking about post-war reconstruction; writing and thinking about wide range of practical proposals.

    By the end of September 1942, he had begun to sketch out bones of post-war industrial policy which drew together progress and policy of the war years.

    Bevin’s approach was straight-forward.

    If unemployment rose over eight per cent, Government had to recognise that a situation of mass unemployment existed. A situation calling for emergency action. A situation demanding the state use other means to provide work and stimulate employment.

    In other words, Bevin was beginning to imagine a world in which full employment and social security became two sides of the same coin.

    When he spoke to the Scottish TUC in April 1943, Bevin set out how for Labour, the Beveridge Report had to be set within a wider picture of employment, wage standards, housing: ‘What we are doing is to bring the whole of this thing together and try to fit it into one blue-print or plan’.

    In 1944, the keystone to that plan was finished. Bevin published the famous White Paper on Full Employment which famously declared:

    ‘The government are prepared to accept in future the responsibility for taking action at the earliest stage to arrest a threatened slump’.

    Bevin presented the White Paper to Parliament a week after D Day.

    He was roundly attacked by his own backbenchers – but he was not knocked off course. By the end of 1944, a white paper and then a bill and then a ministry were created to take forward social insurance.

    By 1945, in Labour’s manifesto ‘Let Us Face the Future’, the party declared a policy of ‘Jobs for all’ arguing ‘production must be raised to the highest level’ and to create with the proceeds.

    ‘Social Insurance against the rainy day’, and a promise to ‘press on rapidly with legislation extending social insurance over the necessary wide field to all’.
    ‘There is no reason why Britain should not afford such programmes but she will need full employment and the highest possible industrial efficiency in order to do so’.

    Finally, at 3.48 in the afternoon on 6th February 1946, the Minister of National Insurance, Jim Griffiths got to his feet to move the National Insurance Bill be read a second time, replete with its first clause: Every person who on or after the appointed day being over school-leaving age and under pensionable age…shall become insured under this act’.

    The Beveridge Report was passing into law.

    When Jim Griffiths moved the National Insurance Bill, the place he began his speech that afternoon, was with Keir Hardie. The founder of the Labour Party.

    The man who 51 years previously had stood ‘a lone figure in that Parliament’ and insisted in the first speech as the first Labour MP, on the principle of work or maintenance. His election address had the demand ‘Work for the Unemployed’ plastered all over it.

    ‘Useful work for the unemployed’ was the call of the party’s first manifesto
    Thirty years later, work was still the heart of Labour’s message.

    The Devil’s Decade of the 1930s, the mass unemployment in the industrial regions of Britain, the memory of soldiers and sailors on the dole inspired a new generation of Labour politicians and thinkers – like Jay, Dalton and Durbin – to wrestle back the ideas of Keynes and refashion them into an agenda for full employment.

    Generation after generation of Labour leaders campaigned for jobs, organised the unemployed and argued for full employment.

    Just think of Red Ellen Wilkinson at the head of the Jarrow Crusade, or Michael Foot leading the People’s March for Jobs fifty years later.

    The campaign for work has always been our first priority.

    But what is sometimes forgotten is that Labour’s leaders matched the argument for the right to work, with an insistence on the responsibility to work too.

    Right at the beginning, in the Webb’s Minority Report on the Poor Law, the Webb’s argued that ‘national government had a duty of so organising the national labour market so as to prevent or minimise unemployment’.

    But with the toughest of action on those who refused to work.

    That the responsibility of the Government to foster: full employment must be matched by the responsibility of citizens to take a job if they can or lose the support that is financed by our common effort.

    The clue is in the name. We are the Labour Party.

    The party of workers. The party of work and mutual endeavour.

    An idea that is our part of our history, our tradition – and our philosophy.

    We are the party that believes that a life of community makes us richer.

    But we are the party that has always believed that if we want rights, then we must ask for responsibility too.

    We were born with the notion that we become free citizens not simply taking away but by putting something back into civic and political life.

    Because we are a party born in working communities, we know that community life does not come from nowhere. It comes from people giving something back.

    David Marquand in his majestic book ‘Britain Since 1918’ divides our political history into four camps; the Whig imperialist, the Tory nationalist, the democratic collectivist, the democratic republicans.

    It is the democratic republicans argues Marquand, who share much of the ‘collectivists’ concern for equality, but ‘they were for fellowship and dignity more than economic equality. They put their faith in the kinetic energy of ordinary citizens’.

    This is the tradition that stretches back to the Levellers in the seventeenth century and the Paineites in the eighteenth. This is the tradition defended by English philosophers like Harrington and Milton.

    A tradition that argues that it is free states that bequeath freedoms to citizens. But for a state to remain free – free of dogma or dictatorship – demands citizens cultivate that crucial quality which the English republicans translated as civic virtue or ‘public-spiritedness’.

    This was the instinct for a greater degree of ‘self-government’ and self-organisation that produced a rich 19th century tradition of political change that was the crucible for the Labour tradition.

    This is the tradition of ethical socialists like Tawney – who rejected any desire to live in a Fabian ‘paralytic paradise’ but argued instead for a country of fellowship.

    This was the tradition that argues that if we gain our freedom through membership of a great club called a free state, then it is wrong to see that membership as a ‘free ride’. Membership comes with a fee.

    The philosopher Quentin Skinner recently put it like this: ‘Unless we place our duties before our rights, we must expect to find our rights themselves undermined’

    This is the modern insight of the communitarians like Amatai Etzioni. Its conclusion is simple: we believe in freedom.

    But we believe a free society demands not just rights but duties.

    A duty to look after each other in dire straits. But a duty too, to do our bit.

    Not just to take, but to put back.

    Today, the Conservative Party offer us a very different kind of approach.

    Back in 1942, I think it is fair to say, with some honourable exceptions like Quentin Hogg; the Conservative Party were not rushing to embrace the Beveridge Report.

    A secret committee of MPs came to Churchill to argue for a very different approach.

    Their chairman Ralph Assheton accepted children’s allowances and contributory pensions – but wanted privatised health insurance and unemployment insurance substantially below wage rates.

    Today, we hear from the Conservative Party, an echo down the years. Today, in the House of Lords, they are doing their best not to renew the Beveridge settlement – but to bury it.

    The new Welfare Reform Bill strips away contributory benefits for the sick. Strips away almost all benefits for modest savers. Strips away safeguards against homelessness.

    But in truth it is impossible for the Conservative Party to offer meaningful renewal of the welfare state – the welfare state for working people – because they simply do not believe in charting a course for the full employment that it is necessary to pay for it.

    Sometimes, I listen to the rhetoric of this Government, and I am reminded of Ronald Reagan and his attack on “welfare queens” 30 years ago.

    Reagan never named her but his myth inspired a movement that started with a call to responsibility and ended by ignoring every cry for help. Reagan’s attack on welfare queens ended with the biggest attack on the measures to promote equality in American history.

    This Government risks repeating their mistakes – mistakes risk destroying the talent of a generation. Not just for now but for years to come.

    Last month, Acevo warned that the young people who are unemployed are far more prone to unemployment in the future, to ill health, to low pay.

    In other words, unemployment is a one-off misfortune. It can scar you for life.

    The cost of today’s youth unemployment will cost us £28 billion over the next decade. In just ten parts of Britain where the cost totals £5 billion.

    It’s not the parts of Britain you would think.

    Its place like Kent, like Essex, Hampshire, Lancashire – and yes, here in Birmingham.

    You know the cost of youth unemployment for us over the decade to come is £625 million.

    That is the equivalent to 15 Joseph Chamberlain colleges.

    And areas that get hit, get hit time and time again.

    The places with high youth unemployment in 1985 were by and large the same areas hit badly in 1992. And they are the same areas hit hard today:

    Birmingham. Glasgow. Essex. Kent. Lancashire.

    That is how expensive the Government’s ‘no-jobs plan’ has become.

    We might feel more relaxed if we thought they had a plan.

    We were promised the biggest Work Programme ever. We were promised Universal Credit would make you better off in work. That was the rhetoric.

    Now we know the reality.

    The Armed Forces Minister says the funding model for the Work Programme is ‘in serious trouble’.

    The long term unemployed are leaving benefits only half as fast as last year.

    And now, we know that cuts to tax credits mean that after April, a couple working part-time on the minimum wage will be £760 better off on benefits than in a job.

    How can than make sense?

    So the Work Programme is not working and you’re better off on benefits.

    That is not going to deliver full employment. It won’t deliver a renewed welfare state.

    So, this is my argument.

    On this 70th anniversary of the Beveridge Report, I believe it is a political duty, to think anew about how the welfare state must change.

    Change for new times. Change for new needs.

    But I believe that the lesson of the 1940s, is the lesson of Beveridge, of Attlee, of Bevin, of Morrison. That full employment and a strong welfare state are two sides of the same coin.

    So, if we want to renew the welfare state for the 21st century, we have to think anew about the path back to full employment, commensurate with a low and stable rate of inflation.

    We know the welfare state needs to change. It needs to change because the world has changed.

    The job for life has gone. The workforce is highly feminised. We’ve sold off the council houses – but didn’t build enough in their place. Our society is aging. All of these changes mean what working people need from the welfare state is very different from 1942.

    But if we want change, change must be paid for. Paid by people who work.

    And the lesson of Labour’s history, of our tradition, of our philosophy is that the right to work must run alongside the responsibility to work too. That is why we argue so hard for Labour’s five point plan to kick-start growth and jobs.

    Because welfare to work needs work.

    But as I say, the right to work must carry with it, a responsibility to work.

    The truth is that the Government is actually weakening the obligation to work. It is perfectly possible under the Government’s arrangements to sail through two years of the Work Programme and straight back onto the dole on the other side.

    We don’t think that is good enough. We don’t think that if you can work, you should be allowed to live a life on benefits.

    So, as we explore new ways to create jobs, we’ll look at new ways to enforce the responsibility to work if you can.

    If you can work, you should.

    That’s the idea that’s explored by my colleague Stephen Timms in a new pamphlet published by the Smith Institute today. It shows how the idea of job guarantees could not only offer people the chance to work – but the obligation to work if they can.

    At a stroke it is an idea that, for those who can work, would end the possibility of a life on benefits. It’s a vital contribution to our policy debate.

    If one man made a reality of the Beveridge Report, it was not a civil servant, or a minister, but a Prime Minister. Clement Attlee.

    He was a man who learned his socialism in the East End. A place where in his words, he said: ‘I found there was a different social code. Thrift, so dear to the middle classes, was not esteemed so highly as generosity. The Christian virtue of charity was practiced not merely preached’.

    He was soon to be alarmed at his first Fabian Society meeting. Seeing a platform full of men with long beards, he whispered to his brother: ‘Have we got to grow a beard to join this show?’

    When he was campaigning to become Prime Minister in 1945, Attlee’s appeal was rooted in that community that practiced what it preached.

    To a war-battered nation, he said this: ‘We call you to another great adventure which will demand of you the same high qualities as those shown in the war; the adventure of civilisation. An adventure where ‘all may have the duty and the opportunity of rendering service to the nation, everyone in his or her sphere, and that all may help to create and share in an increasing material prosperity free from the fear of want’.

    As we mark this 70th anniversary of the Beveridge report, as we mark that milestone in the progress of our country, as we seek to plan out a different kind of future, I think those are fine words to guide us.

    And I believe we can start that business, that great adventure here. Here in Birmingham. Where Joseph Chamberlain did so much to show the way.

    Thank you for listening.

  • Keith Taylor – 2012 Letter to the Guardian on Cuadrilla

    Keith Taylor – 2012 Letter to the Guardian on Cuadrilla

    The letter sent by Keith Taylor, the then Green Party MEP for South East England, to the Guardian newspaper on 16 January 2012.

    Your report (13 January) of a packed village-hall meeting standing up to the chief executive and PR machine of the US multinational Cuadrilla over its plans to drill for gas clearly exposed the strength of feeling on this issue. The villagers are determined to oppose this oil and gas company’s attempt to expand its dangerous fracking practice from Lancashire to the south of England.

    There is growing evidence that fracking can cause a range of environmental problems. A recent study by the US Environmental Protection Agency reported evidence of pollution, finding a range of chemicals in the groundwater around shale gas wells in Wyoming. Last year in Lancashire a report to investigate minor earthquakes found it was “highly probable” that fracking in the Blackpool area by Cuadrilla was the cause. Mounting evidence about the negative impacts of shale gas extraction, along with the growing number of applications to drill in the UK, mean that now more than ever a thorough and independent investigation is needed into the possible effects on the environment and people’s health. Until then the government should halt drilling operations.

    In any case, shale oil will contribute little towards meeting our emissions targets. We should instead be investing in renewable energy, which is clean and safe. Other European countries are aware of the risks – France recently banned fracking. In the European parliament the Greens are questioning the European commission about whether this technique complies with EU regulations on water and chemicals, and I will be meeting constituents next week to support their campaign against fracking.

    Keith Taylor MEP
    Green, South East England

  • PRESS RELEASE : Rishi Sunak call with Taoiseach Micheál Martin [26 October 2022]

    PRESS RELEASE : Rishi Sunak call with Taoiseach Micheál Martin [26 October 2022]

    The press release issued by 10 Downing Street on 26 October 2022.

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak spoke to Taoiseach Micheál Martin this evening.

    The leaders agreed on the vital importance of a strong relationship between the UK and Ireland and expressed their determination to build on that friendship in the coming months.

    The Prime Minister welcomed Ireland’s ongoing support for Ukraine, and the leaders agreed on the importance of continued international unity in the face of Putin’s aggression.

    Discussing the Northern Ireland Protocol, the Prime Minister set out that his preference remained a negotiated outcome and hoped all parties would approach the current challenges with pragmatism and goodwill.

    The leaders agreed on the urgent need for a functioning executive in Northern Ireland.

    Both undertook to continue discussions in the coming weeks and months.

  • Matt Hancock – 2012 Speech to the Association of Colleges Annual Conference

    Matt Hancock – 2012 Speech to the Association of Colleges Annual Conference

    The speech made by Matt Hancock, the then Minister of Skills, in Birmingham on 20 November 2012.

    Two months ago, in this hall, the Prime Minister gave a speech about the need for Britain to compete in the global race.

    He talked about how every one needs to reach their personal best. And how we must not leave anyone behind. He reminded us that our young people must be equipped to compete. Not just with our European neighbours, but with ambitious, innovative, and determined countries all over the world.

    This is a very specific challenge for everyone in this room. And it is that challenge that I want to talk about today.

    Over these past months, I have been hugely impressed by the go-getting and dynamic leadership of the best FE and sixth- form Colleges. I know that you are among the most innovative and responsive of any delivery arm of Government. I know that in this room there is the capacity to do so much more.

    I have a very clear view about what my main role has to be as Minister of Skills. It is not to complain or be a constantly niggling critic. Instead, I want to be the unequivocal champion of Further Education.

    I’m quite unusual in politics.

    When my school didn’t offer the A levels I wanted, I went along to West Cheshire College instead. You were there for me when I needed you. So I will celebrate, eulogise, proclaim and publicise the triumphs in Colleges every day across our land, not just because it is my job to do so, but because I know the value of what you do from my own personal experience.

    But I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t also tell it straight when I think things need to change.

    Now I don’t want any change for change’s sake. But I know you sense a deep unfairness. You feel it in your hearts. I feel it too. It’s a sense of injustice that you deserve a better press, deserve the same recognition as schools and universities.

    Well let me say this – I passionately believe that can happen.

    There is no reason set in stone why technical education should not be seen as on a par with or even more virtuous than university, like it is in Holland or Germany.

    But I also believe this: there is only one way to make that happen. The route to recognition is for every college to be as good as the most outstanding college is today. It will come only when teaching in FE is uniformly high quality. Only when every college is as enterprising as the Gazelle group. When every college reaches for the stars.

    Outstanding education is the route to outstanding acclaim. I want to see every college an outstanding college. I want to see all teaching as inspiring as the best. I will work with you, support you, stand up for you, and yes, challenge you in that goal. And together we can get there.

    For the public at large, the most trusted sign of excellence in education is a positive Ofsted report. School inspection has existed in England since the year Queen Victoria came to the throne. And I am at one with Sir Michael Wilshaw when he reminds us that “Satisfactory is not satisfactory as it’s not good”.

    Ofsted is challenging. I know that. It’s meant to be. But the response must surely be: to raise standards. To improve teaching. To perspire. To aspire. To inspire. And I am at your side.

    I have seen for myself what our best Colleges can achieve:

    • working with engineers in Sheffield to train world class nuclear technicians
    • developing inspiring Peter Jones Enterprise Academies
    • joining employers and universities to sponsor new innovative Studio Schools, UTCs, and Academies.

    I have seen for myself at the Skills Show here in Birmingham the amazing talent on display, honed and thriving through competition.

    When I see excellence I want to spread it. When I see innovation, I want to learn from it. When I see barriers to progress, I want to break them down.

    Over the past two years, under reforms pioneered by my brilliant predecessor, you have taken hold of the freedoms and flexibilities you now have. From next year, a reformed funding system will, I hope, have given you yet more flexibility in how to provide outstanding education.

    But we all know there is more to do. So I want to outline plans in four priority areas where i see the need for further reform.

    • apprenticeships
    • traineeships
    • qualifications
    • standards.

    Let me briefly take each in turn.

    Apprenticeships

    First, apprenticeships.

    Since 2010, over a million Apprenticeships have been started, half a million of them in the last year. And while this increase in quantity is very welcome, we must ensure they are higher quality, more rigorous, and focused on what employers need. I hope that employers come forward with innovative proposals for higher quality Apprenticeships in the second round of the Employer Ownership Pilot we launched yesterday. And Doug Richard will before Christmas say how we can go further, in a report I hope we can embrace.

    Traineeships

    Second, as we raise the standard of Apprenticeships, that will leave a gap. Around the country I have been impressed by the work of many Colleges to give young people the skills they need to get and hold down a job, with Work Pairings, and joint ventures with the Youth Contract and JobCentrePlus. But we must do more.

    So we will bring forward a new traineeship, combining a rigorous core of work preparation, work experience, Maths, and english, with a great deal of flexibility around everything else. I want this to support the best of what’s available, help raise the participation age, and give a clear sense of progression into an Apprenticeship.

    Alongside Traineeships, we must also improve the way our skills system and our benefits system interact. How can we justify a system in which we pay people, so long as they don’t train, rather than support people so long as they do? It’s bad for the economy, it’s unfair on young people, and it has got to stop.

    Qualifications

    Third, high quality education needs stretching and valuable qualifications.

    The QCF is here to stay as an organising framework post-19, but we must be more rigorous about what’s on it, and about what we in Government are prepared to spend scarce resources on. For vocational education to be valued and held in high esteem we must be uncompromising about the value added of vocational education.

    Today we are publishing a revised list of approved vocational qualifications for 14-16 year olds, covering courses taught from next September.

    We are also supporting the work of the Royal Academy of Engineers on new engineering qualifications that will both fit the new system and be stretching and rigorous. I’d like to see more august, employer-led bodies like the Royal Academy step up and design the qualifications employers need. And as you know, as well as reforming qualifications at 16, are we are working on plans for colleges directly recruiting pupils aged 14 and 15 to be directly funded.

    But whatever the age of the learner, I share with Alison Wolf the view that we must encourage the use of the most rigorous and valuable vocational qualifications. And I also share her view that far too little genuinely occupational education takes place among 16-18 year olds.

    We all know that the route for academic kids is straightforward. But those who choose not to take the academic route too often are encouraged into a general applied qualification, instead of properly considering the value of an Apprenticeship or a rigorous occupational qualification.

    So in the coming weeks we will publish a consultation on how to identify the highest value vocational qualifications for 16 to 18 year olds, just as we have done for 14-16 year olds.

    In it we will also consider what more we can do to encourage the take up of Apprenticeships and occupational – as opposed to general applied – qualifications. And of course we must consider what this means for adult qualifications too.

    For vocational qualifications to be seen to be stretching and strong, they must be stretching and strong, and that’s what I hope to achieve.

    Standards

    Finally, standards.

    I have already set out proposals for a guild, led by you, to build up inspirational teaching and a stronger sense of professionalism and pride.

    Today I am setting out plans for high quality colleges to achieve a Chartered Status for Colleges.

    And of course raising standards means tackling poor provision too. We need to be firmer in tackling educational and financial failure, and turning underperforming colleges around.

    And so students and employers alike can see performance for themselves, I can confirm that, from this year, we will introduce common standards and measures of performance between schools and colleges. Both will be expected to meet minimum standards.

    A levels and vocational qualifications are different, so they will be judged separately from each other. But each will be judged in the same way for all institutions. We said we’d introduce a level playing field, and we will.

    And there is one area where Britain should lead the world, but where sinfully we have allowed ourselves to fall behind. Here in these islands, we invented the English language that now dominates the globe. It is the global language: of trade, of culture, of diplomacy, and of the arts. And our history is littered with many of the advances in mathematics too.

    Yet too many of our young people cannot read or write, or add up properly. This is a scandal and it must change.

    We are reforming schools, and exams at 16, to make this happen. That great revolution will take a generation.

    But we don’t have a generation. And it often falls to you to pick up the pieces.

    So to show the value we attach to English and Maths, and to make sure you’ve got the resources to deliver, today I’m announcing we are doubling the amount we pay for adult English and Maths functional skills, and for English and Maths within an Apprenticeship. English and Maths are the foundation of learning and we must succeed.

    Conclusion

    These four priorities: traineeship, apprenticeships, standards, and qualification reform, they are all aimed four-square at raising the value, the esteem, and the regard of further education and skills.

    Recognising only the best vocational qualifications. Increasing support for English and Maths. Stronger Apprenticeships. And new traineeships to help young people into a job.

    I will do what it takes so every one can play their part.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I am a young man, and honoured to be your Minister. And while this job is hard, it is hugely motivating too. For I am passionate about giving everyone in our country the best possible start. I am passionate about what you do for your students every single day.

    We have not been dealt an easy hand of plenty. And I can’t pretend the road ahead is not tough.

    But I know that the innovation, dedication, and inspiration in this room can get us to our goal. And along that road, I am at your side, every step of the way.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Creating a military ethos in academies and free schools [November 2012]

    PRESS RELEASE : Creating a military ethos in academies and free schools [November 2012]

    The press release issued by the Department for Education on 15 November 2012.

    There are a variety of ways in which an academy or free school can promote a military ethos including:

    We are also looking for parties interested in opening a new school with a military ethos. For help and advice about completing a free school application visit the New Schools Network website.

  • PRESS RELEASE : New tougher tests for trainee teachers [October 2012]

    PRESS RELEASE : New tougher tests for trainee teachers [October 2012]

    The press release issued by the Department for Education on 26 October 2012.

    • More rigorous pre-entry tests to raise status of profession.
    • New challenging English and maths tests from September 2013.
    • Calculators to be banned from maths tests.

    Prospective teachers will have to sit new tougher tests in English, mathematics and reasoning before they can start training.

    The changes – recommended by an independent review group of leading head teachers and education experts – would see calculators banned from the new mathematics tests and pass marks in English and mathematics raised.

    This comes as part of the government’s efforts to raise standards in the education system. It will also help Britain compete and thrive in the global race and spread privilege across our country.

    Trainee teachers currently have to pass basic skills tests in literacy and numeracy. Until this September, they took the tests only towards the end of their training course and were allowed unlimited re-sits.

    Latest figures show that around 98% of trainees passed the tests, calling into question the level of challenge. Candidates have already been limited to two re-sits for each test from this September, and the pass mark has been raised.

    Chaired by top head teacher Sally Coates, the Skills Test Review Panel has now recommended that:

    • the current tests are strengthened with tougher questions and approaches – for example, banning calculators and testing candidates’ use of English through their writing of continuous prose;
    • the pass mark for the English and mathematics tests is raised again, to the equivalent of GCSE grade B;
    • a new test for verbal, numerical and abstract reasoning is introduced, recognising that good teachers need to respond quickly and appropriately to often unpredictable demands.

    Candidates will have to achieve separate passes in English, mathematics and reasoning in order to be able to start teacher training. The review panel also proposed that the new tests could be used alongside degree class as a factor in determining the level of bursary to which a trainee teacher would be entitled. The government has today accepted the review panel’s recommendations in full.

    Education Secretary Michael Gove said:

    The evidence from around the world is clear – rigorous selection of trainee teachers is key to raising the quality and standing of the teaching profession.

    These changes will mean that parents can be confident that we have the best teachers coming into our classrooms. Above all, it will help ensure we raise standards in our schools and close the attainment gap between the rich and poor.

    Sally Coates, chair of the Review Group and the Principal at Burlington Danes Academy in west London, said:

    In carrying out the review, we wanted the tests to send a strong signal about the quality of teachers we all want to see.

    We believe that the whole selection process needs to be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that anyone who gains a place on a course of initial teacher training would be highly likely to succeed in that training, and go on to make an excellent teacher.

    Charlie Taylor, chief executive at the Teaching Agency, which is responsible for administering the new tests, and a former headteacher said:

    The new tests are part of our strategy to create an outstanding workforce of teachers. This is what parents expect and children deserve.

    We also want teaching to be a real choice for top graduates and by raising the bar on entry, we will further raise the status of the profession.

    Today’s announcement is part of wider plans to raise the quality of teachers in England to match the best-performing countries in the world. The government set out last year its reforms in the ‘Training our next generation of outstanding teachers’ strategy, which include:

    • offering graduates particularly those with first-class degrees in physics, chemistry, maths and modern foreign languages significantly better financial incentives to train as teachers – up to £20,000;
    • extra financial incentives for trainee primary maths teachers and trainee teachers who work in the most challenging schools;
    • encouraging more primary specialist teachers to be trained through specialist training programmes;
    • the new School Direct programme allowing schools to lead their own high-quality teacher training;
    • giving schools a stronger influence over the content of initial teacher training, as well as the recruitment and selection of trainees;
    • weeding out poor-quality initial teacher training providers.
  • PRESS RELEASE : Money spent on management fees cutting quality of apprenticeships [October 2012]

    PRESS RELEASE : Money spent on management fees cutting quality of apprenticeships [October 2012]

    The press release issued by the Department for Education on 24 October 2012.

    The ‘Ensuring quality in apprenticeships’ report has been published by Ofsted today to look at apprenticeships in more detail.

    The report also assesses the quality of subcontractors providing services for colleges and training providers.

    In 2011 the Skills Funding Agency introduced a policy of minimum contract values. This meant smaller providers had two main choices – to form a consortium or set up as a subcontractor for larger providers. In many cases smaller, often good providers have been penalised by the loss of funding they can use to support apprentices because their lead contractors took too high a fee for very little work, often equating to the loss of frontline members of staff.

    National Director of Learning and Skills, Matthew Coffey, said:

    Following criticism of the delivery of some apprenticeship programmes earlier in the year, Ofsted commissioned a rapid response survey with particular focus on subcontracting arrangements.

    This report has found the introduction of the minimum contract value has forced often very good smaller providers to either work together or become a subcontractor of a larger provider. In several cases this has diluted accountability and has placed a greater distance between the learner and those responsible for learning.

    Ofsted found that resulting consortia often added value to learning programmes and benefitted learners. However the report also found some unintended consequences of the policy where smaller providers became a subcontractor of the larger organisation. The criteria to act as a lead contractor are based on the size of contract rather than a track record of delivering high quality apprenticeships. Some lead contractors lacked sufficient expertise of work-based learning to quality assure the work of their subcontractors. For example, one was unaware that the subcontractor was not carrying out reviews of learners in the workplace, a contractual obligation.

    Lead contractors charge smaller providers a top-slicing fee as a percentage of the contract value in return for allowing them to access the funding and supporting them in their work. This fee varied considerably and inspectors found no clear link between the quality of support and challenge and the fees charged to subcontractors.

    As part of the survey report, inspectors found some of the apprenticeship programmes too short in duration to sufficiently embed the skills being developed. There were also some examples of apprentices, particularly younger ones, being used as inexpensive labour during their training and then being discarded as employees to be replaced by new apprentices.

    Many apprentices were unclear about who was ultimately responsible for their training programme. Ofsted has recommended that the government and other agencies should consider introducing an independent whistleblowing hotline, so concerns and potential problems can be picked up quickly.

  • PRESS RELEASE : New industry-backed plans to boost computer science teaching and help Britain compete in the world [October 2012}

    PRESS RELEASE : New industry-backed plans to boost computer science teaching and help Britain compete in the world [October 2012}

    The press release issued by the Department for Education on 19 October 2012.

    Prestigious £20,000 scholarship for top graduates to train as computer science teachers

    New computer science teacher training course to replace ICT

    Upskilling current teachers as experts in computer science

    As part of the government’s mission to ensure Britain competes and thrives in the global race, Education Secretary Michael Gove today set out plans to boost the teaching of computer science by training up the first generation of outstanding new teachers in this vital subject.

    This comes as the government announces the end of funding for the current outdated information and communications technology (ICT) teacher training courses, to make way for new computer science courses from September 2013.

    Top graduates will be enticed into a career in teaching with a new prestigious £20,000 scholarship programme set up with BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT and supported by industry experts such as Microsoft, Facebook, BT and IBM.

    Industry experts, working with education professionals, have also for the first time ever set out the requirements for the subject knowledge and attributes all new computer science teachers should have before they start their training. This includes being able to demonstrate an understanding of key computer science concepts and approaches such as algorithms, data representation and logic.

    This is all part of the government’s drive to recruit and train a new cadre of teachers with the expertise and enthusiasm to drive improvement in the quality of computer science teaching in schools.

    A recent Royal Society report looking at computing education in UK schools found teaching was ‘highly unsatisfactory’. It said that many pupils were not inspired by what they were being taught and gained nothing beyond basic digital literacy skills such as how to use a word-processor or a database.

    Education Secretary Michael Gove said:

    Computer science is not just a rigorous, fascinating and intellectually challenging subject. It is also vital to our success in the global race.

    If we want our country to produce the next Sir Tim Berners-Lee – creator of the World Wide Web – we need the very best computer science teachers in our classrooms. They need to have the right skills and deep subject knowledge to help their pupils.

    Around 50 scholarships worth £20,000 each will be available in the first year. Any graduate with a 2.1 or first class degree will be eligible to apply for the scholarship to do a computer science Initial Teacher Training (ITT) course.

    Working with experts in the industry and in teaching practice, BCS will award scholarships to candidates with exceptional subject knowledge, enthusiasm for the study of computer science as well as an outstanding potential to teach. BCS’s relationship with the scholars will continue into their teaching careers to develop a cadre of outstanding computer science teachers who are part of a community across schools, universities and industry.

    Bill Mitchell, Director of BCS Academy of Computing, said:

    The UK needs far more technology creators and entrepreneurs if we are to stay competitive in the global economy. That means students need to be taught not just how software and hardware works, but also how to create new digital technology for themselves.

    The best way to do that is to have outstanding computer science teachers in as many schools as possible, which is why these new initiatives are so important.

    Ian Livingstone, Life President of Eidos and Chair of Next Gen Skills, said:

    Having dedicated, high-calibre computer science teachers in schools will have a powerful effect. They will inspire and enable children to be creators of technology rather than being simply passive users of it. Whether it’s making games, fighting cyber-crime or designing the next jet propulsion engine, computer science is at the heart of everything in the digital world in which we live. It is essential knowledge for the 21st century.

    The BCS scholarship comes as part of the government’s teacher training strategy, Training our next generation of outstanding teachers. It follows on from the success of the physics scholarship with the Institute of Physics, a recent announcement of a new scholarship with the Royal Society of Chemistry.

    The plans announced today also include:

    Allowing top universities and schools to provide new computer science teacher training courses from September 2013, whilst ending government funding for the current Information and Communications Technology (ICT) courses. This follow on from the government’s announcement earlier this year freeing up the ICT curriculum to allow schools to focus more strongly on computer science.
    New, tough requirements for the subject knowledge and attributes all new computer science teachers should have. This includes being able to demonstrate an understanding of key computer science concepts and approaches such as algorithms, data representation and logic. This has been designed by a panel of experts including representatives from the grassroots Computing at School Working Group along with professional associations such as the British Computer Society (BCS), Naace and the Association for Information Technology in Teacher Education (ITTE).
    Training up around 500 teachers in computer science through a new ‘Network of Computer Science Teaching Excellence’. Part funded through a £150,000 government grant, over the next year existing teachers with an ICT background will be trained to better teach computer science. Around half of these will be expert teachers who will share their skills and knowledge with other teachers across the country and help support professional development for their colleagues.
    The network will help forge long-term links between schools, top universities involved in computer science and employers. Around 540 schools have already registered interest in the network and top university computer science departments including those at Cambridge, Imperial and Manchester and employers such as Microsoft, BT and IBM have also signed up.

    Professor Chris Bishop, Distinguished Scientist at Microsoft Research, said:

    Microsoft is passionate about improving the way that we teach technology in schools, but also how we use technology to teach. As founding members of the Computing at School working group, we’ve been working to inspire both teachers and young people about the importance of computer science for a number of years.

    Scholarships such as those announced today will be vital in ensuring that the UK maintains a healthy pipeline of computer science talent, which can only be a positive thing for this country’s future prosperity.

    Simon Milner, Facebook’s Director of Public Policy for UK & Ireland, said:

    Facebook welcomes the scholarship programme for teachers announced by the government today. It is a positive step to help get high quality computer science teachers in schools, and therefore ensure more young people gain the right skills to join and lead our digital industries.

    We get excited by how the work of Facebook engineers and outside developers is transforming the way millions of people communicate, so we can’t wait to share our passion and expertise in this area to inspire the next generation.

    Simon Peyton-Jones, Chair of the Computing at School Working Group (CAS) and Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research, said:

    We need to attract outstanding new computer science teachers, and we must support our existing ICT teachers as they start to teach the subject. CAS fully supports today’s announcements, which give unmistakeable government support to both these challenges. We look forward to playing our part, and working with government to make a substantial and lasting improvement to our children’s education in the vital subject.

    Notes for editors
    This press notice relates to England only.

    Further details of the BCS scholarship in computer science, including details of how to apply, can be found on the BCS website.
    For more information on becoming a teacher visit the ‘Get into Teaching’ website.

    The new, tough requirements for the subject knowledge and attributes all new computer science teachers need to demonstrate is available in the Subject knowledge requirements for entry into computer science teacher training.

    In January 2012, a Royal Society report looking at computing education in UK schools found teaching was highly unsatisfactory. It said that many pupils are not inspired by what they are taught and gain nothing beyond basic digital literacy skills such as how to use a word-processor or a database. The full report Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools can be found on the Royal Society’s website.

    The government’s announcement on changes to the ICT curriculum can be found on the news section.

    A new revised, less prescriptive programme of study for the subject will be announced in due course. It will come into effect from September 2014.

    Further details on the Network of Computer Science Teaching Excellence can be found on the BCS website.

    The government’s Initial Teacher Training Strategy – Training our next generation of outstanding teachers – and implementation plan is available.

    In January 2012, Education Secretary Michael Gove spoke about ICT teaching in schools. The full speech is available.

     

  • Jonathan Hill – 2012 Speech at Studio Schools Movement

    Jonathan Hill – 2012 Speech at Studio Schools Movement

    The speech made by Lord Hill, the then Education Minister, on 18 October 2012.

    Thank you David, and thank you for giving me the chance to come today to say a few words about the studio schools movement that is gathering pace across the land.

    When I spoke at your conference two years ago, there were just two studio schools. Today there are 16. By next September we should hit 30.The application round for September 2014 is open and I know that I will be seeing more strong proposals coming forward by the beginning of next year.

    We are seeing new studio schools opening from London to Liverpool, from Durham to Devon. And they are doing so at a cracking pace. Last year we weren’t able to approve successful proposals until December. Yet 9 months later, thanks to the incredibly hard work of sponsors, 11 new studio schools opened successfully.

    That shows to me not just what people can achieve when they put their minds to things, but how great the demand for studio schools is – from employers, from parents, and from pupils.

    One of the best parts of my job is seeing schools that at the beginning of the year were just names on a piece of paper, open, bustling, and full of children. That is an amazing achievement, so to those of you in this room who were part of that I would like to say thank you. And to those of you who are embarking on the same process for next September – or who intend to bid for September 2014 – I want to say that on past form it is eminently do-able. And you won’t be alone.

    There is the excellent Studio Schools Trust led by the brilliant David Nicholl who will be on hand to advise and support. A growing number of Studio Schools who can share their experience, particularly on the importance of early and consistent marketing. And my team of officials who I know will give you all the help they can.

    Why am I an enthusiast for studio schools? Because they provide a different route for children who learn better by doing and who are by nature more practical or entrepreneurial. Because alongside those practical and vocational skills they offer a rigorous academic education. And because they are a brilliant way of bringing the worlds of education and work closer together to the benefit of both.

    We have all heard employers saying that they can’t find British school leavers with the skills they need. And it’s not just concerns about literacy and numeracy, but equally basic things like turning up on time, looking presentable, knowing how to work in a team and how to take instructions from a manager.

    A recent Federation of Small Businesses survey said that something approaching 8 in 10 firms are concerned that young people leaving school aren’t ready for work. And a survey carried out by the CBI earlier this year found that 42% of businesses were not satisfied with literacy of school and college leavers, and over a third were not satisfied with levels of numeracy.

    What is exciting about studio schools is that employers aren’t just pointing out a problem. They are rolling up their sleeves and doing something about it.

    What better way of bridging the gap between school and work is there than local businesses helping to shape the curriculum, providing mentoring and offering proper work experience – often paid for after the age of 16. Is it any wonder that when I visit studio schools I see keen, smartly turned out youngsters motivated by the chance to work with and learn from local employers.

    And wherever I go I meet parents who speak about the difference they have seen in their children.

    There are more than 150 employers currently working with studio schools and that figure is increasing the whole time as schools build new relationships with employers large and small to offer the widest range of opportunities to their pupils.

    These range from major national employers like Capita, the Press Association, Ikea and Specsavers a to smaller local businesses including architects, graphic design companies, local Michelin Star restaurants and public sector employers.

    There are studio schools with specialisms as diverse as gaming and digital futures, construction, catering and hospitality, health and social care, science and engineering, and creative arts. Including the studio school here in Southampton which is going to specialise in marine and cruise industries. These all reflect the local jobs market and the needs and strengths of local areas.

    There is growing enthusiasm, not just from employers, but from different kinds of sponsors wanting to open a studio school. The first wave saw lots of outstanding FE colleges stepping forward. Outstanding academies such as the Parkside Federation in Hillingdon and Ockenden Academy in Thurrock and academy chains such as AET and the Aldridge Foundation, are also becoming studio school sponsors in growing numbers.

    And for the first time this year, we approved two projects driven by community groups: Kajans in Birmingham and the Vine Trust in Walsall.

    While there is no standard blueprint for a studio school they share a common feature. They are all driven by inspirational groups who are determined to give young people the chance to achieve their potential.

    And it’s important to be clear that studio schools aren’t some kind of soft option. There isn’t anything soft about the practical skills being offered and all studio schools will offer a solid academic grounding in maths and English and science, as well as a range of other GCSEs and vocational qualifications. Many studio schools like LEAF in Bournemouth, Da Vinci in Hertfordshire and Devon Studio School, will give pupils the opportunity to study for the EBacc. In the sixth form, the offer may include A levels, BTECs, or apprenticeships. This opens up to students a range of opportunities after they leave the school, including going on to university, further vocational training, Higher Apprenticeships, employment or starting their own business.

    So studio schools offer a fresh and new culture. They are all ability. They have high aspirations. And they are part of a broader move to increase choice, alongside the expansion of university technical colleges, academies and free schools, academies. A system driven by local people, local children and local employers.

    As such, they speak to many of the key principles that underpin the government’s overall education reforms.

    We are supporting greater freedoms by placing more trust in professionals and stripping back top-down interference where we can. Politicians always say they believe in trusting professionals – and then nearly always do the exact opposite.

    We have an underlying goal of trying to tilt the system back in favour of trusting professionals. You can see it in our drive to cut back on regulations. We have removed 75% of centrally-issued guidance to schools over the last two years – more than 20,000 pages. We are determined to resist adding subjects to the national curriculum and indeed – to slimming it back to a core – freeing up more time for teachers and schools. And we have opened up academy freedoms – the legal basis of all new studio schools – to all schools who want them.

    We want a system that is driven more by parental and pupil choice and less by central planning. One which allows good schools to expand and challenges weaker schools to improve.

    I love the fact that left to their own devices, groups are coming up with all sorts of ideas and approaches that the state could not have imagined. Successful models are bubbling up from below rather than being imposed from the top.

    In the case of studio schools, we are also seeing much of this increased choice happening in our poorest communities. Of the studio schools that opened their doors for the first time in 2012, 50% are serving the most deprived 10% of communities.

    We are also working to develop more rigorous qualifications – academic and vocational – that are valued by universities and employers. In particular, we need to strengthen standards of literacy and numeracy.

    We’re reforming the examination system to ensure we do not have multiple examination boards competing in a race to the bottom; and we’re reforming post-16 funding in a way that will increase funding for good quality vocational education and work experience.

    Looking ahead
    This is the context in which studio schools are flourishing. And it’s in this spirit of autonomy, choice and high standards that I am so keen to see the movement expand further.

    I think the future for studio schools is bright.

    We don’t have a target for the number of studio schools we are looking to open but I am looking forward to another crop of imaginative proposals, spread around the country, which offer an excellent education, good value for money and keep capital costs low.

    We will announce successful proposals for September 2014 before the summer – this will give groups nearly twice as long to get to opening as they had last year.

    I am also glad to say that there is support for studio schools across party lines. I have been glad to build on work started under the last government and I am equally glad that Stephen Twigg is coming here later today to lend his support to Studio Schools. Ultimately, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Studio schools will live or die by their results.

    So all of us involved with them have a heavy responsibility. But in the bright faces of the students I see in the new studio schools, in the passionate teachers, the dedicated sponsors and the motivated employers I have every confidence that studio schools are a winning formula and offer something new and exciting for students, for parents, and for employers.

    Thank you.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Tackling educational disadvantage for children in care [October 2012]

    PRESS RELEASE : Tackling educational disadvantage for children in care [October 2012]

    The press release issued by the Department for Education on 11 October 2012.

    The Ofsted report, published today, explores the impact virtual schools have on tackling the educational progress of these children.

    Virtual schools are established by many local authorities and work with children looked after across their catchment as if they were in one school, liaising with the schools they attend, tracking the progress they make and supporting them to achieve as well as possible.

    ‘The impact of virtual schools on the educational progress of looked after children’ report explores the impact of virtual schools in 9 local authorities, examining cases and looking at the effectiveness of education support for children in care.

    In the local authorities visited, virtual schools have raised the profile of educational attainment for children in care, promoted much better communication between professionals, increased the involvement of carers in children’s education, and helped to improve attendance and reduce exclusions.

    However, there was little evidence that they were yet able to reduce the attainment gap between children looked after and their peers. Progress between key stages 3 and 4 was generally slower than during earlier key stages, and improving the percentage of those attaining 5 or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths, remained a challenge for most authorities.

    Budget constraints have also led to a significant reduction in the capacity of virtual schools in some local authorities. Although most of the local authorities were able to protect existing resources, nearly all expressed concerns about the future.

    Deputy Chief Inspector for Ofsted, John Goldup said:

    There is much that is hugely positive in this report, and some of the examples of the difference that the virtual school has made to the lives of individual children are truly inspiring. These successes need to be celebrated and built on. However, the life chances of too many children in care are still blighted by poor educational outcomes. While some planning and target setting is very good, expectations are too often too low, particularly for children who have the capacity for high attainment.

    The role of councillors is crucial. Local authorities are parents to these children. Virtual schools are at their most effective where corporate parenting is strong and challenges and supports the virtual school effectively.

    In every local authority visited, the virtual school took the lead in ensuring that education was central to planning and reviewing children’s care. For example, in Hampshire a literacy scheme for children in care was set up which increased the average reading age by 11 months through a 16-week programme, while in Cornwall the systematic use of data to track and action educational progress had reduced the attainment gap between children in care and their peers, particularly at GCSE level.

    The impact of virtual schools was mostly positive. They were often very effective in influencing schools to take more account of the needs and circumstances of looked after children, supporting designated teachers, supporting and training foster carers and residential care staff, and in working with social workers who often felt a lack of confidence and expertise in relation to children’s education – to quote one, ‘I am hopeless with school stuff’.

    However, the report found that several virtual schools had not established clear eligibility criteria, which meant that services were not always effectively targeted for those children who most needed additional support. And while there were good examples of personal education plans (PEP), too many were not sufficiently focused on academic achievements. PEPs were more likely to effectively address the needs of children who were performing below expectations. They were generally less effective for children who were meeting expectations but could do even better.

    There was also a lack of clarity and knowledge among professionals about the appropriate use of the Pupil Premium. This sometimes hindered the ability of authorities to question and challenge schools about how a particular child was benefiting from the funding and whether the school was meeting the child’s needs.

    The report makes a number of recommendations to local authorities to assist them in ensuring that a virtual school has maximum impact on improving educational outcomes for children in care. It also recommends that government should consider whether there should be a statutory duty on authorities to establish and maintain robust virtual school arrangements.