Oral Answers to Questions
Michael Gove Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
But of course £1.9 million is not even going to touch the scale of the problem that we have here. Recent research from PwC found that for every pound invested in free school meals there was a return of £1.71 in savings to the state. Given that many families have moved beyond “just about managing” into “just about surviving”, when will this Government match the Scottish Government’s commitment to universal free school meals for primary children and the transformational Scottish child payment?
Andrea Jenkyns
As the former Education Secretary rightly says, it was our idea.
Let us look at the funding that we are giving Scotland. The devolved Administrations are well funded to deliver their devolved responsibilities. They have had block grant funding of an average of £41 billion a year. The Government have also extended free school meals to more children than any other Government over the past half a century. We remain committed to supporting the most disadvantaged children.
Kit Malthouse
As I said earlier, we recognise that schools are under significant pressure, as is most of society, and we must work together to try to get through it in good shape. We will obviously be making representations to Treasury colleagues as we move towards a statement on Friday, and indeed beyond, about what those pressures are, so that the Chancellor and new Prime Minister—hooray—can make choices within a priority framework that reflects the priorities of the Government.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
Ministers will be aware that at the weekend it was reported that the school in England that has recorded the best Progress 8 score, and the best measure of how much value is added during time in the classroom, is Michaela Community School in Wembley. Michaela is a free school. It encourages students to study EBacc subjects, and it is Ofsted outstanding. The Labour party opposed the creation of free schools, opposed the EBacc, and wanted to abolish Ofsted. What lessons can we learn from that?
School Funding
Michael Gove Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Mr Gove, I think you need to calm a little. A little peppermint tea might help.
Draft Coasting Schools (England) Regulations 2016
Michael Gove Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. This is the final stage of the legislative journey to implement the Government’s commitment to identifying coasting schools, but the idea of coasting schools came about under the last Labour Government, who saw them as schools at risk of failure. Labour identified the issue quite a few years ago, so it has been quite a journey to get to this point.
As the Minister has pointed out, the draft regulations give extended powers to the regional schools commissioners to intervene, yet today we learn that one of the Government’s key performance indicators for the commissioners is not standards, but how many schools they get converted into academies. Just this afternoon, Schools Week says:
“The government continued judging regional schools commissioners (RSCs) on how many schools they converted into academies…despite fears about a conflict of interest”.
That prompts the question whether the RSCs are independent arbiters in terms of judging whether our schools are failing, successful or coasting.
Although RSCs were introduced as a pragmatic response, we need to ensure that there is proper oversight. I think that there is a capacity issue. The Select Committee on Education says that RSCs are part of a
“complicated system of…accountability and inspection”.
That prompts the question whether they are fit for purpose. The Education Committee says that a
“fundamental reassessment of accountability and oversight for all schools will be required in the future to provide coherence”
and talks about ensuring
“that RSCs have the capacity to cope with planned expansion of their role.”
The Minister has already said that what we are discussing could affect 800 schools. We know from previous debates that the Department for Education is groaning under the weight of the MAT—multi-academy trust—initiative, whereby more schools are leaving local authority control and being directly controlled from Whitehall. That situation will be exacerbated very quickly, with 800 schools coming online.
The Select Committee says that the role of RSCs “remains unclear”, that they do not have effective relationships and that there is a “lack of transparency” and an issue about decision making. It says that without attention to those issues, they will come across as “undemocratic and opaque”.
One measure of the opacity is the report by Martin George in The Times Educational Supplement that none of the regional headteacher boards, which meet monthly to decide whether a school is coasting or doing well,
“have published minutes since June”.
So schools do not know; they are not getting the information. The Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), told The Times Educational Supplement:
“There’s a paucity of useful information available online about the work of headteacher boards…The Department for Education…and RSCs need to up their game and ensure up-to-date information is published to ensure there is transparency and accountability.”
The ultimate tool in the regulations is that which forces schools to academise, but the Government need to think again about whether blanket academisation is the only vehicle to support the raising of standards. There is a mountain of evidence that academisation is no silver bullet, so let us look at the evidence. The Department’s own statistical working paper says that at key stage 4, more than half—54%—of MATs are performing significantly below average for adding value, and a further 13% are estimated to be performing slightly below average.
Michael Gove
Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the Committee by reminding us how many more children are in schools that are good or outstanding now, in comparison with 2010?
Schools that work for Everyone
Michael Gove Excerpts(7 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady sets out the SNP’s approach to education, but it does not bear comparison with the dramatic improvements in our English education system during the past six years, which we absolutely aim to continue to drive forward. We have seen a stronger focus on school leadership and teaching standards. We have seen a more rigorous curriculum that truly enables our children to have the knowledge and skills they need to be successful. Critically, we have seen schools working far more closely together in order, collectively, to raise attainment standards across the board. I am saying today that I want some parts of our education system that have played less of a role in doing so than I think they can to step up to the plate and to do much more.
The hon. Lady asked about attainment. The reality is that disadvantaged children who get into grammar school come on in leaps and bounds. In fact, the attainment gap between them and better advantaged cohorts has dramatically closed by the time they leave school. Fundamentally, the difference between us and the opposition parties is that we believe that that is a good thing, and that we should therefore look at how to make such an opportunity available to more children. The opposition parties believe we should have a levelling down. That is the difference, and that is why we do not accept their approach.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the clear moral purpose that runs through every word of her statement? Her commitment to ensuring that every child in this country receives a high-quality education and that we narrow the attainment gap between rich and poor is the driving mission she has brought to the role of Education Secretary, and I for one am delighted to see her at the Dispatch Box.
In particular, the Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that two of the highest performing education sectors in this country—independent schools and universities—still have not done enough to help disadvantaged children to do more. Do not the examples of the Harris Westminster free school, supported by a great independent school, and King’s maths school, supported by a great university, show that institutions that select at the age of 16 can ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds can do more? Will she reassure the House that, in the face of the opposition to all reform and all debate by the dogmatists on the Opposition side of the House, she will be driven entirely by data and what works, and that she will press ahead with the cause of reform?
Justine Greening
I can assure my right hon. Friend of that, and I thank him for his comments. He was a Secretary of State who was willing to press on with difficult decisions to get the best outcome for Britain’s children, and he was absolutely right to do so. Failure comes from failing to address the difficult questions that we need to ask ourselves to improve England’s education system. We are prepared to address those questions, and we are putting our proposals out in a consultation document, which is effectively a Green Paper.
As my right hon. Friend says, innovation is happening across the system. We can look at the maths school that King’s College London has set up, or at the Harris Westminster college, or further afield at the work of the University of Brighton and the University of Exeter, which are truly showing how they can work with their local school system and more broadly to raise attainment. We should learn from them and expand the impact of universities, not contract it.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Michael Gove ExcerptsTuesday 19th July 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
I acknowledge that the Scottish National party takes a very different view of this issue. The reality is that the choice that it has made has resulted in fewer students being able to go to university in Scotland. One in five students in Scotland who apply for, and who have the grades to get, a place cannot go because the funding is not available. The hon. Lady’s Government in Scotland have made that choice, but it is not a choice that this Government want to make. We have to make sure that places are available for students who have the potential and talent to make their way in life. Putting a cap on opportunity and potential is not just bad for students; it is bad for our country more broadly.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on assuming her new role? She has been an outstanding advocate for greater social mobility in every role she has had in frontline politics, and I am delighted to see her in this job.
Is it not the case that, following the introduction of fees, we have seen more students from working class and poorer backgrounds go to university in England and Wales, while in Scotland educational inequality has worsened, to the extent that the First Minister of Scotland had to sack her Education Secretary in despair at the way in which inequality was growing north of the border?
Justine Greening
Since 2009, students from a disadvantaged background in England are 36% more likely to go to university. It is not good enough to come up with excuses and tell young people of great quality who have the grades that they cannot go to university because the Government who, unfortunately, are running the country in which they live are not prepared to take the decisions to enable funding to get to the sector and create the places that they need. We are prepared to do that.
The Bill is about opening up the sector to enable new providers to enter it and create the extra places that our young people need. There will be rigorous tests for those new providers, as well as for those that already exist, centring on quality and making sure that they have financial stability. We are interested in enhancing the world-class reputation of our universities in creating opportunity for all, rather than in expansion for its own sake.
Mr Marsden
There is absolutely nothing wrong with quality, but we have to see where the quality extends. The truth is that that is not clear in the TEF before us.
In addition to the first year, we know that only the simplest of tests will be available to allow HE institutions to obtain tuition fee increases. In essence, it is a cash-in coupon. There are no guarantees about where that will take us in fee changes in years two and three. It is therefore not surprising that the vice-chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire, Bill Rammell, who is a former HE Minister—[Interruption.] When the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), stops barracking from the Front Bench, he might find that one or two respondents to the Bill have close connections with the Government and the Conservative party. It is not surprising that Bill Rammell says that the TEF proposal
“risks the commoditisation of higher education”,
even if the Government have had to row back from their original plans.
It took about six years in the early 2000s to get a broadly acceptable framework for measuring research quality with the research excellence framework. Simply using existing datasets and metrics in teaching such as the national student survey will not on its own do the business. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said that the use of metrics as proxies for quality was problematic. Although the White Paper claims that TEF awards will add up to £1 billion in 10 years, there are no cost predictions. The Government are proceeding on the assumption that there will be only one TEF assessment per university—a one-size-fits-all approach that has been criticised by a wide range of commentators, not least at the all-party parliamentary group meeting that the Minister spoke at last December. Where is the recognition of that, and where is the strategy for finessing that assessment, which could perhaps be done by schools of humanities, science, social science and so on?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous and I do not doubt his commitment to improving higher and further education, but for the life of me I cannot understand what his argument is with the teaching excellence framework. He begins by attacking the Government for extensive consultation and then attacks the Government for being too narrow and rigid in their application. Which is it: are the Government too open-minded or too narrow-minded? Can he enlighten the House?
Mr Marsden
From a right hon. Gentleman who has demonstrated his ability to turn on not one but several sixpences in the past few weeks, I think that that is a little rich. I will, however, deal with his particular point. It is not a question of saying that we do not support the teaching excellence framework. What we are saying is, “This is the Government and these are your Ministers. Bring forward the material to demonstrate it is going to work.” So far, they have not done so.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is being exceptionally generous in giving way. In improving access to higher education, is not improving the quality of secondary education one of the most important things? Is it not a great tribute to our previous Prime Minister and to the previous Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), that there are now 1.4 million more children in good and outstanding schools who now have the chance to go to university and achieve great things?
Mr Marsden
I am always happy to applaud excellence in the secondary sector, but it is a little rich coming from the right hon. Gentleman, given that he and his predecessor presided over a system in which level 4 schoolchildren were denied automatic access to work experience, which would have built up their skills and capacity to take some of these positions.
Neil Carmichael
Yes, of course I do. Colleges do produce foundation degrees, for example, and that has a logical link and extension to universities. The relationship between larger colleges and universities should be allowed to develop and be encouraged, because that is exactly the kind of fluid way in which we can address the question of getting the skills we need.
I want to end on a subject that is also critical: making sure we think about the world of education in a linear way, from start to finish. That is why I am so pleased to welcome the creation of this new Department. I wrote about it a few years ago, and hoped it would happen, and now it has. There were several reasons why I hoped it would happen. One of them is that we do need to see universities and colleges thinking more about what their relationship is with schools and academies. That is a key issue, and the direction of travel goes the other way, too. That will help us understand more about what the labour market and the skills requirements are.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee is making, as ever, a compelling argument. I want to associate myself with the point he has just made about universities and higher education institutions playing more of a role in our schools. Does he agree that the leadership shown by Baroness Alison Wolf in ensuring that King’s College, London sponsors a maths school—an outstanding new free school—is exactly the model other universities should seek to emulate, and that if vice-chancellors want to show they are committed to social inclusion and social mobility they should sponsor more free schools and academies?
Neil Carmichael
That is an interesting intervention and I was coming on to that area, because the world of education is not just boxed up into different sections; it is linear. We need to see more mixing up of people within the sector. There is value in vice-chancellors knowing more about schools and academies and in lecturers getting more involved in schools. I also want to emphasise the value of businesses and professions going along as well. That will mean we get an education system that knows more about what is needed out in the world, that is more comfortable with itself in delivering those things, and that is reaching out to the people who most desperately need to be reached out to—those whom I described as being locked into places where they should not be and being deprived of opportunity and hope. That is what we have to put right on this journey we are embarking upon with the Second Reading of this Bill.
The Committee I chair will look at a lot of issues raised by the Opposition; I have taken note of one or two of them, because I want my Committee and this House to get this Bill right, as it is an important Bill. If viewed through the prism of Brexit the Bill is even more important. Brexit is a call to arms for our education system. We will have to provide more of the skills that we need because we will not necessarily be able to rely on the European Union to do that for us, and that must be in the back of our mind when we think about higher education, or indeed about all education.
Carol Monaghan
All SNP Members share that concern, and we should be worried about the move towards privatisation of the university system.
Courses that are more expensive to deliver—again, I mention STEM courses—will be left to traditional higher education institutions that will either bear that financial burden alone or, worse still, will abandon some of the courses that have earned the UK its worldwide reputation for excellence in that field. New institutions will be allowed to operate without providing services such as libraries or student unions, which are a key part of the student experience at university. Indeed, the Bill permits competition not on equal terms with existing universities, but on substantially reduced terms. The only assumption one can make is that the new providers will put profit before students.
The Government have outlined two models, and with the “low” fee cap of £6,000 we will have universities that potentially offer lower quality provision. At the other end of the scale, the higher fee of £9,000 can further rise with inflation. Where teaching is high quality, that is recognised as a strength of an individual course, not of an institution, yet fees will be the same for all courses in an institution. Creating a system that assesses the quality of a whole institution and allows it to raise the fees for every course based on that assessment when the quality of teaching will vary across departments, is unrealistic. It will create a framework in which students could study courses of lower quality at an institution that was judged to provide “generally” high quality, yet they would, unfairly, be charged higher fees for poor-quality degrees.
Michael Gove
Like the hon. Lady I am a huge admirer of higher education in Scotland, not least because in the middle ages my home town of Aberdeen had as many universities as the whole of England. In its most recent report, the Sutton Trust revealed that Scotland has the worst record of any part of the United Kingdom in admitting students from poorer backgrounds to higher education. What is going on?
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I will try to keep this even shorter, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure, as a London MP, to be here with the dynamic duo who have now taken over our education system: my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who is, unfortunately, not in her place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson). Having sat here for the past two hours, I can confirm that he has slightly blonder hair than she does, although I will allow excuses to be made about that. We have another London Member here, the birthday boy, no less: the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). Mysteriously, when I read The Guardian today I saw that it said he was born in 1972 and I was sure that must have been a misprint— he does not look a day over 55 to me. I look forward to hearing his words later on.
At this point, I should make a brief declaration of interest, in that I have spent the past 11 years on the advisory board of the London School of Commerce, which is a private higher education provider.
Michael Gove
I am sure the House is delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend is a reader of The Guardian, but may I say that I am glad we do not have mandatory reselection in the Conservative party, because such a confession might not endear him to his constituents, and I very much hope he is here for many years to come?
Mark Field
That is very kind. As a vice-chairman of the party, may I say that there might be mandatory reselection in Surrey Heath before too long if we are not careful? I thank my right hon. Friend for the observation. Perhaps this is another Guardian misprint; perhaps that is what the problem has been.
As I was saying, before I was rudely interrupted, my role on the advisory board of the London School of Commerce has been enthralling and interesting. I have watched the development of a private education provider that has dabbled with the idea of having full university status and trying to get degree-awarding powers but has actually expanded overseas. This debate is probably not a great opportunity to talk about the Government’s immigration-related policies, but let me say that I do recognise that they have had an impact on the broader higher education sector; a school that had some 7,500 students coming from abroad only 10 years ago now has about a third of that number. However, one interesting thing has been that this college provides two-year degrees and charges well under the £9,000 limit, and there has been growth in the number of domestic students in recent years; there is a sense that this is a vocational, value-added degree going forward. I have watched the college develop further colleges overseas in places such as Kuala Lumpur and Dhaka in Bangladesh, and in a number of European centres. The fact that the college is often just regarded as an alternative provider fails to acknowledge its genuine contribution to the vital eco-system of higher education, where this Bill, perhaps belatedly, is doing important work. Elements of this Bill would have come into place some five years ago had it not been for some high-profile problems arising.
It is fair to say that there is an apparent sense of rude health in this sector, and we all have to recognise that this is a hugely important business and revenue generator for UK plc. That is partly because of the benefit of our having the English language, but to a large extent it is because we have highly recognised and highly approved standards of quality. We perhaps take that for granted with our own education providers, be they in the HE or the FE sphere, but this is not necessarily the case in many other parts of the world. The Minister will know that we have some 125 publicly funded HE institutions, which have almost 2 million students. The sector employs 170,000 academic staff and has an income in excess of £25 billion per year.
The research side of what is being proposed in the Bill is crucial, as innovation is at the heart of what is done in many of our universities, although not all. It is right to recognise that some providers in this sphere will not go down the research route, recognising that they will be focusing largely on vocational education. It is also important that we bear in mind that it is not just spin-off companies from the Cambridge universities of this world that do well; a huge number of high-tech companies, in pharmaceuticals and in other areas, have tremendous successes.
I have been the MP in this district for the past 15 years. Right in the heart of London, we have a tremendous array of HE providers. We have the super Russell Group of the London School of Economics, King’s College London, Imperial and, just outside my constituency, University College London. They are globally successful universities, and in many ways the dominance in popular culture of Oxbridge is now being threatened, in a positive way, by the raising of standards by those four London universities, which are now global players in what they do.
I also have in my constituency one of the sites of the London Metropolitan University, which has been a troubled institution. I have worked with a number of MPs across the House to try to make the case for its continued existence in these troubled times. When I hear debates such as the one that took place earlier today on the idea of allowing universities to fail, I think that that is an important part of any economic eco-system. I do not deny that the implications of such a failure for employees and for students cannot be ignored, but I believe that that is a healthy state of affairs if universities are not doing the job and not providing the education that they ought to provide. If that education is not of appropriate quality or there is insufficient demand for it, universities should not be preserved just because they have existed as institutions for a long time.
I welcome the Bill. I shall focus my brief comments on part 1, which deals with the creation of the office for students. No one can deny that the regulatory system in this sector has evolved into a bafflingly complex framework of organisations and an alphabet spaghetti of acronyms. The overlap between the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Office for Fair Access and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education has rightly been identified. The new mechanism will get rid of that overlap.
I wholeheartedly support the recognition of the role of students as consumers. They are far more conscious of that role than they ever were in my time as an undergraduate in the mid-1980s, and that is a positive thing. One of the by-products of students paying for their education is that they want to get good value from it. They will be much more critical of poor or repetitive teaching. They will want to ensure broadly that the facilities, both academic and non-academic, within the institutions to which they are paying that money are of a high standard. When I see undergraduates in my constituency, I am struck by how focused they are on getting the best out of their education. One might say that that is consumerism; one might say it is a source of regret for those of us who were at university in bygone decades. I think it is a healthy state of affairs that students take such matters seriously. The Bill implicitly recognises that by setting up the office for students.
The Bill needs full scrutiny in Committee and in the other place, where there are plenty of experts in this field. There are concerns about the granting of provisional degrees, which were mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden). The proposals to relax the criteria for validating degree-awarding powers will need to be examined thoroughly. I have some sympathy with the view that because the title of a university is much respected, it should be clearly protected and defined. I hope that if we have a system that allows market failures, the Government will make provision for the interests that need to be protected. No university should be seen as too big or too old and established to fail. A range of regulatory relationships will need to be clarified, but the Bill establishes an important new architecture for the higher education system.
One aspect that will no doubt be debated here and in Committee is Government and ministerial interference in university courses. We need to ensure above all that those institutions retain as much academic and administrative freedom as possible. That is important going forward.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on the ambitious proposals set out in the Bill. She has already shown herself willing to put excellence and elitism at the heart of the state school system, with her open-mindedness about the expansion of the grammar school sector. As a committed Conservative and former grammar school boy, it is tremendous for me to hear a Conservative Government putting social mobility at the heart of our educational philosophy.
I regard the promotion of competition, variety and consumer choice as long overdue, so I am delighted that this Secretary of State and her Minister for Universities and Science have indicated the intention to take on the vested interests in this field. There are few things as conservative as the left-leaning cadre of vice-chancellors. I wish the Bill Godspeed and look forward to hearing the rest of the debate on it this afternoon.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
As a new Back Bencher, I feel fortunate to have the chance to contribute to this debate; it has been well-subscribed, and conducted in the generous spirit one would expect of any education debate. And we have learned a lot, as we would expect in any education debate. We have learned that the University of Aberdeen is staying true to its internationalist foundations at a time of change. We have learned that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) is that rare thing on the Conservative Benches, a Guardian reader. We have also learned from his skilled powers of observation that the new Secretary of State for Education is slightly less blonde than the Minister for Universities and Science, but one of the things his observation has reinforced in my mind is that blondeness is clearly a quality that brings preferment under this new Government—and I know where I went wrong.
I also thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) for his contribution from the Front Bench for the Labour party. He was a distinguished editor of History Today and an outstanding Open University lecturer, but I fear that in his speech today he did not do himself justice. His speech was 45 minutes long, which is some 12 minutes longer than Mozart’s longest symphony, and during those 45 minutes, while there was a great deal of criticism of the Government’s proposals, there was precious little that was fresh, original or new in terms of policy vision. As an education reformer, he is not yet ready to join the ranks of Rab Butler, Lord Robbins or H.A.L. Fisher. It was a pity that instead of what we used to have from Labour—a comprehensive vision of education, education, education —we had instead prevarication, obfuscation and mystification. It is, I fear, sadly reflective of the condition in which the Labour party now finds itself—of the fact that a party that was once committed to the improvement of education, the extension of opportunity to all and radical reform to bring that about now has so little to say. That is not a criticism of the hon. Gentleman or indeed of those who spoke from the Labour Back Benches today; it is just an observation of the fact that where there was once intellectual fertility, there is now, sadly, aridity. But I wish my colleagues on the Labour Back Benches well as they try to ensure their party rediscovers its radicalism and policy vitality.
May I contrast the lack of ideas, fizz and energy on the Labour Front Bench with the qualities displayed by our new Secretary of State in her remarks opening this debate? I had the opportunity to remark earlier on the fact that our new Secretary of State has made extending social mobility the hallmark of all the roles she has taken in Government. She spoke eloquently and from the heart about her own personal journey and her commitment as a graduate of Southampton University and as a comprehensive school girl who was the first in her family to go to university to extend to others the opportunity she herself has enjoyed. It is a promising sign that she now leads a fused and reinvigorated Department for Education that covers the support of children from the moment of birth right up to the point at which they go on to an apprenticeship or into university. It was a mistake of Gordon Brown to separate universities—to make them orphans first of all in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and then to have them spatchcocked into the business Department—because I feel an unnecessarily narrow and utilitarian approach was taken towards higher and technical education.
The restoration of a Department that sees education in the round and takes a holistic approach to human development and intellectual inquiry is all to the good, and the Secretary of State is absolutely the right person to lead it, and the Minister for Universities and Science, who has already proved himself a distinguished higher education Minister, is the right person to take this Bill forward in Committee.
It is appropriate that we legislate at this stage because this Bill is a sequel, in a way, to the changes we introduced under the coalition. It was the Browne report into higher education finance and the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), and indeed Vince Cable when he was Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, that ensured that we were able to place the financing of higher education on a sustainable footing for the future. Almost uniquely among European nations, our higher education system is solvent as a result of the courageous decisions that they took. He will not thank me for mentioning it, but the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), displayed both courage and principle in rejecting his election promise and embracing the right policy outcome. Although he paid a political price for that decision, we should record that it was right, not just for the solvency of our higher education institutions, but also for access. As a result of those changes, more children from poorer backgrounds, and from working-class and disadvantaged homes, now go to university than ever before, and that is a direct result of the courage and coherence of the reforms that were made to funding. Having made those funding reforms, we must now complete the story and ensure reforms to the structure and quality of higher education, so that we maintain our position of global leadership.
Let us be in no doubt that universities across the United Kingdom are global leaders, and some of our finest institutions are among the top 20 universities in the world. Those include not just established institutions of great antiquity such as Oxford and Cambridge, but London’s universities, which are outstanding in research, teaching and their capacity to improve our productivity. We are fortunate that changes in the Bill will ensure that the position of global leadership that we currently enjoy will only be enhanced.
I welcome the fact that the Bill will lead to the development of new challenger higher education institutions. As the Secretary of State made admirably clear, at every point in our history, whenever it has been suggested that we expand the number of higher education institutions, “small-c” conservative voices have always said that more would mean worse. The Anglican clergy used to insist on a monopoly on higher education learning through their stranglehold on Oxford and Cambridge, until a brave, utilitarian radical helped to set up University College London, and helped to break that monopoly and extend higher education.
Throughout the 20th century we had the establishment of the red brick, the plate glass, and the polytechnics into universities, and each of those steps was an exercise in the democratisation of knowledge. It is a pity that in recent years, even though the University of Buckingham has taken its place among universities as a first-class institution, we have not had the same innovation and new institutions being created, but this Bill makes that possible.
There is, of course, an absolute requirement for new institutions to meet a quality threshold that ensures that public money and intellectual endeavour are well directed, and that is why I welcome the principle of the teaching excellence framework. Those on the Opposition Front Bench criticised the Minister of State for being a listening Minister and wishing to consult, while simultaneously suggesting that he was somehow closed-minded and rigid in his desire to ensure that we compare like with like. Let me come to the Minister’s defence—he does not need me to defend him because logic will suffice. The teaching excellence framework has been subject to extensive consultation. That consultation closed just over a week ago on year 2 of the TEF, and in that document of more than 60 pages a series of detailed questions were asked, all of which followed intense engagement with those working in higher education. It was a model for how a Department should consult, and the Minister has shown himself to be a listening, pragmatic and empirical steward of his responsibilities. The TEF has and will evolve as it should in the best traditions of the Department.
The idea that we should somehow object that the TEF allows us to compare different types of institutions is a fundamental misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Blackpool South said that it was a one-size-fits-all approach, but it is explicitly not that, as the consultation makes clear. It is an opportunity to allow individual institutions to be compared in a way that allows meaningful lessons to be drawn for undergraduates and for the Government.
Mr Marsden
Let me make it clear that we were not saying that the TEF was a one-size-fits-all measure. We were saying that the basis on which it was going to operate during the first year was one size fits all. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember that I went on to talk about the need for the TEF to be more disaggregated so that we could look at it within universities. That process might yet come forward.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. Indeed, in the constructive spirit in which most of this debate has been held, I welcome what he says and entirely accept that this is a move towards greater consensus.
One concern that people sometimes have about an emphasis on quality is that it somehow runs counter to the important principle of access, and that there somehow has to be a tension between maintaining rigorous teaching and research quality in an educational institution and broadening access. I do not think that there is necessarily a tension between the two, and neither do those who lead our universities. It has been conspicuous, over the past six years and beyond, how energetic vice-chancellors and others have been in ensuring that they can broaden access to higher education.
I would make the point, however, that while universities have worked hard and collaborated with the Department for Education in its previous incarnations to try to influence the curriculum and examinations in such a way as to maximise access to the benefits that higher education can bring, still more could be done. I do not accuse any institution or individual of bad faith, but I believe that there is additional potential for higher education institutions to, as it were, get their hands dirty in the business of improving secondary education. As I have mentioned, King’s College London has helped to set up a new maths free school which will ensure that gifted students from across the state sector have an opportunity to graduate to the mathematic and scientific degree courses that our country needs. It would be a wholly good thing if more universities were to follow the example of those that have been in the lead in sponsoring academies. In saying that, I am simply reiterating the case that has already been made so brilliantly by my Friend in the other place, Lord Adonis.
As well as ensuring that we improve access, the Bill makes it clear that academic freedom must be defended. The National Union of Students—a distinguished former president of which sits on the Opposition Benches—has often been an effective steward and safeguard of undergraduates’ interests. At the moment, however, there are voices and individuals within the NUS who have not upheld the best traditions of academic freedom and who have in some respects created a chilling environment and a cold home for students, particularly those who are Jewish. I applaud the work that has already been done by the Minister of State in ensuring that academic freedom is not simply an abstract question of academics being allowed to publish, debate and discuss, and that it must also be about ensuring that our universities are places where individuals can feel confident that they are respected and that their intellectual journey will be allowed to proceed in safety, whatever their background.
That brings me to my final point. A number of speakers in the debate have talked about Britain’s departure from the European Union as though it were a cataclysm the like of which this country had never endured before—a sort of Noah’s flood that will bring devastation to our institutions. I respect the fact that passions were engaged during the referendum debate and that those who argued that we should remain were sincere in their belief that leaving the European Union would bring problems and challenges for our higher education institutions. All I would say is that if we look at continental Europe—I mean no criticism of those countries—we can see that there are no world-class universities in the eurozone that could take their place alongside the universities of this country or indeed of the United States of America or south and east Asia.
The spirit of intellectual inquiry—and, indeed, international collaboration—that marks out all our best universities globally does not depend on membership of any political union or subscription to any bureaucratic system. It depends on a belief in honest inquiry, a desire to go where the truth takes you and a commitment always to have an open mind to new facts, new experiences and new people. I am confident that those who lead our universities will take the opportunity that the Bill gives them to ensure that the superb work they do remains open to students from across this world, so that our higher education sector, which has done so much to strengthen our economy and to make this country such a very special place, can proceed into the future with confidence.
School Expansion
Michael Gove Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I look forward to lively and illuminating exchanges on this important matter. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and silence are at best nodding acquaintances in leap years only. However, there has already been far too much chuntering from a sedentary position on both sides, beginning with Mr Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles, and then followed by Opposition Front-Bench Members. I very gently and in a good spirit say to the Secretary of State that it is always a pleasure to welcome her to the House and to hear from her.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Lady does not need chirruping from a sedentary position from the Secretary of State for Justice, but if he feels he just cannot resist, well, we will bear it stoically and with fortitude.
What the Education Secretary should not do, however, is talk about Opposition policy. I remind the House and those listening that this statement is taking place in the Chamber only because I granted an urgent question. The Prime Minister, very properly and understandably, wanting to go first, asked for permission to convert it into a statement so that she would follow him. However, it is happening only because I granted an urgent question, and I granted it to hear about Government policy, not general wittering about Opposition policy from anybody.
Points of Order
Michael Gove Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to hon. Members for the points of order they have raised. What I would like to say to the House is this: the fact of the documentary being granted permission is well known. That decision was made some time ago on the basis of deliberations by the Administration Committee. That is a well-established fact and I make no secret of the fact that I support wholeheartedly that decision. I think that Members would accept that it would be invidious for the Chair, on anything of a regular basis, to be expected to comment on particular requests. Suffice it to say that I am in regular touch, of course, with representatives of both sides of the House at the highest level, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton would expect, and, of course, with the Chair of the Administration Committee. Each request should, I think, be treated on its merits.
I have heard of one request that is apparently to be winging its way towards me, to which neither the hon. Lady nor any other Member has referred today, which I would regard as wholly intrusive, unfair to Members and unacceptable. If such a request to interfere with the private space of Members when they are relaxing, enjoying themselves and consuming food or drink in the Tea Room is made, those making the request will be disappointed. [Hon. Members: “What is wrong with it?”] What is wrong with it? I do not think that an hon. Member consuming a cup of tea and beans on toast should be subjected to a film crew.
Mr Speaker
Before I take a point of order from the hon. Gentleman, to whom I always listen with the greatest respect, I should record for posterity that the Secretary of State for Education, either deliberately and sincerely, or ironically and teasingly—I leave hon. Members to judge—said “Three cheers for the Speaker”. He is on the record.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman says it was sincerely. It is on the record and I shall treasure it.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) always seeks to behave in an orderly manner and with respect to precedent and the rulings of the Chair, so I therefore assume that he is not raising a point of order on the same matter.
Oral Answers to Questions
Michael Gove Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
4. What recent assessment he has made of demand for free schools.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Free schools are proving tremendously popular. Approximately 24,000 pupils already attend free schools and many of those schools are already oversubscribed. Free schools are also more likely to be rated “good” or “outstanding” than other schools inspected under Ofsted’s new framework.
Mr Wilson
As my right hon. Friend knows, I am a keen supporter of free schools and I am delighted to hear about the success they are enjoying. However, it is also important that the Education Funding Agency finds the right sites for them, which is challenging in urban areas such as Reading and, in particular, Caversham. Will he therefore agree to meet with me and representatives from my local community to discuss the location of the Heights primary school? Further, will he agree that the community should have full transparency of information and related issues from the local education authority and the EFA?
Michael Gove
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and to do everything I can to ensure both that the need for a new school is met and that the concerns across the community that he highlights are properly addressed.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State explain exactly what “security grounds” means when used to turn down a free school application?
Michael Gove
All free school applications go through a rigorous process that is policed by the Department’s due diligence and counter-extremism unit and will ensure that any inappropriate application that is put forward is not accepted.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
21. The West Reading Education Network parents’ group is seeking approval to open a single academy trust secondary school next September. The same parents’ group set up the outstanding All Saints junior free school. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is exactly the type of excellent parent-led initiative that everyone in the House should be backing? It certainly enjoys cross-party support in Reading.
Michael Gove
I absolutely do agree. It is important to bear in mind that the All Saints school in Reading was outstanding in every category when it was inspected by Ofsted. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to ensure that the quality of education that Reading parents enjoy continues to improve.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State agree that what we need in education is a balance between free schools and academies and a role, as there surely must be, for local democracy? Is this the resistance that the Prime Minister has to the expansion of the free schools programme: that there is not enough local democracy in it?
Michael Gove
I think it is important that there is a balance—I find myself increasingly in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. There is a role for greater autonomy—exercised by principals, driven by a sense of moral purpose—to improve education. It is also the case that there is a role for local authorities as well, not least when it comes to safeguarding children at risk.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State regret the weak scrutiny—and, indeed, evaluation—of applications for free schools that has led to what must be, for him personally, some extremely embarrassing examples of poor educational provision?
Michael Gove
I do not mind embarrassment personally—[Interruption.] Just as well, some might say. What I do worry about is if any school, anywhere in the country, is not providing the highest quality education for children. One of the striking things about the free schools programme is that not only are schools more likely to be “good” or “outstanding”, but when schools have underperformed, we have moved rapidly to close them or replace the leadership of schools that have not been doing a good enough job.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the architect of the free schools policy, Dominic Cummings, was in the Department last week, despite the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) saying in a written parliamentary answer to me that there was no record of his visit? Could that be because he wrote last week, in typically bad taste, that he always signs into Government Departments, including No. 10, under the name of Osama bin Laden? What on earth is the Secretary of State doing still relying on this man’s advice?
Michael Gove
The architect of the free schools programme was actually Andrew Adonis, not Dominic Cummings, as he himself has said. Free schools were a Labour invention—a point that was repeated by the former Prime Minister Tony Blair when speaking to The Times today. As for the hon. Gentleman’s points about former special advisers, all sorts of people from time to time seek to visit the Department for Education to exchange ideas with old friends and colleagues.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
6. What steps his Department is taking to strengthen relationships between local employers, schools and further education colleges.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
11. What steps he is taking to ensure that admissions processes in free schools and academies are fair.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Free schools and academies must comply with the school admissions code. The criteria that are used to decide the allocation of school places must be “fair, clear and objective”. Anyone who considers that a school’s admission arrangements do not comply with the code can make an objection to the schools adjudicator.
Graeme Morrice
What steps will the Secretary of State take to strengthen the code and the role of the adjudicator, as proposed by Labour?
Michael Gove
The adjudicator is already capable of making binding determinations, and has already been clear about the schools—whether they are academies, free schools or other schools—that have not subscribed to the requirements for fair admissions. Let me add, in relation to the broader question of admissions in general, that it is this coalition Government who have ensured that schools can give preference to students from poorer backgrounds through the pupil premium, and have used the admissions code to advance social justice, which the last Government signally failed to do.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
12. What provision has been made to fund the furnishing of new school buildings built under the Priority School Building programme.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
At the weekend, Her Majesty the Queen was pleased to confer knighthoods and damehoods on a number of outstanding teachers. May I add my congratulations to those of others to Andrew Carter, Barry Day, John Dunford, Anthony Seldon, Nicola Nelson-Taylor and Erica Pienaar? There are many outstanding teachers in our schools today and we should celebrate their work. I am particularly pleased to acknowledge that there are teachers from the recently judged by Ofsted “outstanding” Warmsworth primary in Doncaster in the Gallery today, and I congratulate Mrs Marshall on her superb Ofsted.
Dr Huppert
The Secretary of State is right that there are many excellent teachers. Is he aware of the evidence that has been produced by the “too much too soon” campaign about play-based learning? What assessment has he made of the benefits of a sustained period of creative play-based learning before children are exposed to more formal learning environments?
Michael Gove
Early years practitioners know that we need both structured play and appropriate introduction at the right time to more formal methods of learning to get the most out of every child. We are very fortunate that we have not just a revised early years foundation stage but more and more talented people teaching in the early years.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is of course disorderly to refer to the Gallery, but I feel sure that the occupants of it will be revelling in the praise that the Secretary of State has generously conferred on them. On this occasion, his disorderly conduct is readily excused, but only on this occasion.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
I fully associate myself with such disorderly conduct in the House and congratulate those inspiring school and college leaders who have rightly been recognised by Her Majesty the Queen. Teaching is a moral mission, and it should be celebrated as such.
In 2010, the Department for Education was warned of threats to schools in Birmingham, but for four years, on the Secretary of State’s watch, his Department failed to act. The chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, is now urging the Government to provide greater public assurance that all schools in a locality, regardless of their status, will discharge the full range of their responsibilities. When will the Secretary of State accept that micro-managing schools from behind a desk in Whitehall does not work, and that we need a proper system of independent, local accountability?
Michael Gove
I suspect that that question will be shown not only on BBC Parliament but on UKTV’s Gold channel, because it is a magnificent repeat. The hon. Gentleman asked precisely that question in his speech last week. The truth is that we took action to deal with extremism in schools, which the last Government never did. We have also taken action to introduce no-notice inspections, which will ensure that Her Majesty’s chief inspector has the powers, which he was denied under the last Government, to deal with the problems that started under the last Government.
Tristram Hunt
The reason I am asking the question again is that we are still searching for an answer. Labour’s answer is absolutely clear: we need directors of school standards, independent of local authorities, to ensure a robust system of local oversight. The Secretary of State’s policy involves more Whitehall centralism, more unqualified teachers, and less collaboration and accountability. Is it not the case that even those on the Government Benches now realise that Birmingham has shown that his school model is bust?
Michael Gove
I have to say that the hon. Gentleman did rather better at reading out his question this time than he did last week, so I suppose it really was worth that exercise in déjà vu all over again. The truth is that Labour’s policy is opaque and unclear. At different times, the hon. Gentleman has been in favour of free schools and greater autonomy, and against them. He is currently in favour of abolishing the national curriculum in all schools, but David Blunkett, the man who advises him on schools policy, is in favour of imposing it in all schools. As I have said before: inconsistency, thy name is Tristram.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think that the Secretary of State was referring to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). I feel sure that he was.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
T4. Further to his somewhat unilluminating response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), will the Secretary of State tell the House—and if necessary write to me—on how many occasions his former special adviser Dominic Cummings has visited the Department for Education since he left the Secretary of State’s employment, and whom he met on each occasion?
Michael Gove
I will consider carefully, as ever, the hon. Lady’s question, but it is instructive that with many educational challenges in her constituency, she chooses once again to disappear down the rabbit hole of Whitehall process, rather than seeking to stand up for her constituents.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
T9. The Secretary of State will recall from our meetings in the Department that there is concern about the funding of the transition from three-tier to two-tier education, particularly in my constituency. Will he confirm that under this Government, funding for extra primary school places is nearly double what it was under the previous Labour Government?
Michael Gove
I absolutely confirm that increase in funding, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has been as tenacious as a Doberman Pinscher with a bone between its jaws in ensuring that children in Bury St Edmunds and across Suffolk get the support they need financially and educationally.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Ambitious about Autism recently reported that some 28,000 children, or more, have been informally and illegally excluded from schools. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what action he will take to protect some of our most vulnerable children?
Michael Gove
Children on the autistic spectrum often present with types of behaviour that can in certain circumstances lead to disciplinary and behavioural problems. The answer, of course, is to ensure that we are in a position to identify the needs of those children earlier. Later today the House will debate some of the consequences of legislation that we have introduced to improve identification and support of all children with special educational needs.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
My constituent Jack Entwistle is a lively 11-year-old who suffers from autism. He is being denied education suitable for his needs by Lancashire country council, and unfortunately he is not alone. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to try to end the discrimination that Jack is suffering from the education department at Lancashire county council?
Michael Gove
I will ensure that a Minister meets my hon. Friend, whom I thank for his dogged and determined work on behalf of his constituents. We have both had our frustrations with Lancashire county council over the years, but any vulnerable child in Burnley has a highly effective champion in my hon. Friend.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House exactly when Dominic Cummings ceased to hold the pass that allowed him access to the Department for Education?
Michael Gove
I think it was Jimmy Carter who was once attacked by critics for worrying about exactly who was using the tennis courts at the White House. I am not responsible for the allocation of passes to the Department for Education, but I am always happy to welcome constructive critics such as the hon. Lady for an enjoyable discussion over a cup of tea whenever she wants to come to the Department.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
The rise in the number of apprenticeships in my constituency has contributed to a 52% fall in youth unemployment since the last election. Will the Minister join me in congratulating local employers who are taking those youngsters on, and colleges such as Selby college and York college whose work in that area is doing so much to provide life chances and career prospects for those young people?
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Thinking that it faces too many bureaucratic hurdles, the Local Government Association is looking for more powers to interfere in free schools and academies. All too often, local authorities are the bureaucratic hurdles, holding back inspired head teachers, inspirational boards of governors, and parents who want a better future for their children. Will my right hon. Friend resist these efforts by local government to take back controls?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is a man after my own heart. There are some outstanding local councils, not least, for example, in the north-east and Darlington. They do a great job in supporting head teachers to raise standards and exercise a greater degree of autonomy. Sadly, however, there are those who want the creeping tendrils of bureaucracy once again to choke the delicate flower of freedom, and I am afraid that the Opposition Front Bench is a particularly rank unweeded garden when it comes to nurturing those tendrils.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State expect multi-academy trusts, which are significantly changing the way in which their services are delivered to their academies, fully to consult their head teachers and local governors before these changes are set in train?
Michael Gove
I would expect all multi-academy trusts to do everything possible to ensure that the local community and those involved in the delivery of services were appropriately consulted. I look forward to chatting to the hon. Gentleman when the Education Committee next meets so that he can expand on that point.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The number of apprentices in Harlow has increased by more than 80% during the past year. Will the Minister look to increase the prestige of apprentices and create a royal society of apprentices, which would improve their status and encourage more people to do apprenticeships?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Secretary of State noticed the groundswell of opposition to the proposal that the Government might privatise child protection services in local authorities? Has he clearly got the message from people as diverse as Professor Eileen Munro and Caitlin Moran in The Times that that is an unacceptable place for privatisation?
Michael Gove
I have enormous respect for both Eileen Munro and Caitlin Moran in The Times, and I have been influenced by both of them in different ways. I should stress that we are not proposing the handing over of services that are there to protect vulnerable children to people who are after a fast buck. We have an innovation programme that has been endorsed by many leading organisations, charities and third sector organisations that work with the most vulnerable children. The problem at the moment is that far too many local authorities either require improvement or are very poor in the way in which they look after these vulnerable children. We need to work with external organisations to ensure that those children have the best possible future.
National Curriculum
Michael Gove Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
On 11 September 2013, I published the new national curriculum for all subjects except for English, mathematics and science at key stage 4. Following a consultation on draft programmes of study for key stage 4 English and mathematics from 2 December 2013 to 3 February 2014, the Department is consulting, until 13 June, on the draft order and regulations that will give effect to the new programmes of study. The final programmes of study are planned to be published by the end of the current school year.
Today, I am publishing for consultation the programme of study for science at key stage 4. The consultation will run until 23 July 2014. On 9 April 2014 we published the new GCSE subject content for science. It is important to consider this programme of study alongside the GCSE subject content to ensure that the curriculum and qualifications are fully coherent.
The programme of study in science at key stage 4 is more challenging. It has been drafted by experts to ensure that it sets expectations that match those in the highest performing jurisdictions. The content is closely aligned to GCSE combined science content. It builds upon and deepens understanding of ideas developed in earlier key stages in the subject disciplines of biology, chemistry and physics. It focuses on the big ideas in science such as evolution and inheritance, the atomic structure and energy and forces and includes new content on developing areas such as the human genome. The working scientifically section emphasises the importance of practical work including experimental skills, analysis and evaluation of data and the understanding and nature of scientific evidence. It makes clear that working scientifically should be embedded within the subject content across all three science disciplines.
The key stage 4 programme of study for science will be introduced from September 2016, alongside first teaching of the new science GCSEs.
Copies of the consultation on the programme of study for key stage 4 science will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
School Teachers' Review Body (24th Report)
Michael Gove Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
The 24th report of the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) is being published today, responding to the remit I issued in October 2013. The report contains recommendations on how to apply the pay award for teachers that is due to be implemented from September 2014. Subject to the views of consultees, I intend to accept the STRB’s recommendations in full.
The STRB has recommended a 1% uplift of the national framework for teachers’ pay from September 2014. The uplift will be applied to the minima and maxima of all the pay ranges and allowances in the national pay framework, including the:
unqualified teachers’ pay range;
main pay range;
upper pay range;
leading practitioner pay range;
leadership pay range;
head teacher groups;
teaching and learning responsibility (TLR) allowance pay ranges;
special educational needs (SEN) allowance pay range.
The STRB has also recommended that those teachers and school leaders who currently sit on the maxima of the pay ranges should receive a 1% uplift. For all teachers who are paid other than on the minima and maxima the STRB has recommended that schools should determine locally how to take account of the uplift.
In addition to the uplift, the STRB has made a number of recommendations about advice that my Department should issue, including that the discretionary reference points in departmental advice should be uplifted by 1%. A full list of the recommendations is attached as an annex.
My officials will write to all of the statutory consultees of the STRB to invite them to contribute to a consultation on my acceptance of these recommendations, and on the text of the 2014 school teachers’ pay and conditions document. The consultation will last for six weeks.
I am grateful for the careful consideration which the STRB has given to this important matter. Copies of the STRB’s 24th report are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses, and online at www.gov.uk
Annex to written ministerial statement
School Teachers’ Review Body’s (STRB’s) remit and recommendations
1—In October 2013, I referred to the STRB the following matters for recommendation:
a) What adjustments should be made to the salary and allowance ranges and scales for classroom teachers, unqualified teachers and school leaders to reflect the 1% pay award for public sector workers;
b) What adjustments should be made to salaries and allowances in payment;
c) How to provide a simplified and flexible framework for ensuring school leaders’ pay is appropriate to the challenge of the post and their contribution to their school or schools;
d) How the current detailed provisions for allowances, other pay flexibilities and safeguarding could be reformed to allow a simpler and more flexible STPCD; and
e) How the framework for teachers’ non-pay conditions of service could be reformed to raise the status of the profession and support the recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers, and raise standards of education for all children.
2—In making its recommendations, the STRB was asked to consider:
a) The need to ensure that the proposals reflect the Government’s policy that public sector pay awards average 1% for the two years following the pay freeze;
b) The affordability of any recommendations within the existing budgets of individual schools;
c) The need to ensure that any proposals are not difficult or onerous for schools to implement;
d) Evidence of the national state of teacher and school leader supply, including rates of recruitment and retention, vacancy rates and the quality of candidates applying for qualified teacher status (QTS);
e) Evidence of the wider state of the labour market in England and Wales;
f) Forecast changes in the pupil population and consequent changes in the level of demand for teachers;
g) The Government’s commitment to increasing autonomy for all head teachers and governing bodies to establish pay arrangements that are suited to the individual circumstances of their schools.
3—In its 24th report, the STRB has recommended:
A 1 % uplift to be applied to the minima and maxima of all the pay ranges and allowances in the national pay framework—unqualified teachers’ range, main pay range, upper pay range, leading practitioner pay range and the leadership pay range, including the minima and maxima of the eight head teacher pay bands, the three levels of teaching and learning responsibility (TLR) allowances and the special educational needs (SEN) allowance.
That, for those on individual pay ranges1 schools determine locally how to take account of the uplift to the national framework in making individual pay progression decisions and consider how individual pay ranges should be uplifted.
The pay2 of teachers on the minima and maxima of their range and of head teachers on the minima and maxima of their pay band be uplifted to the new minima and maxima in September 2014.
DfE makes clear that, in revising its pay policies for 2014-15, schools should consider, and set out, how any pay decisions for those on the maxima of pay ranges in September 2015 will take account of performance in applying any uplift to the national framework.
DfE uprates by 1% the reference points in its advice to schools. For the purpose of guiding September 2014 pay decisions.
That schools who have not adopted the reference points set out in DfE advice consider how to apply the 1% uplift to the national framework to their local policy.
That reference points should be removed from DfE advice following the September 2014 pay decisions.
That DfE makes clear that all schools should revise their pay policies for 2014-15, and set locally determined arrangements for performance-related progression as a basis for decisions on pay in September 2015.
That DfE makes clear in advice to schools the scope for the most able teachers to progress rapidly through the main and upper pay ranges, where justified by consistently excellent performance, to the leading practitioner and leadership pay ranges.
1. Leading practitioners and teachers in leadership posts
2. Base pay excluding any allowances. The treatment of allowances is covered by separate recommendations.