Agenda item

(To receive a report by Martin Smith, Children's Services Manager – School Standards, which provides the Committee with a summary of the key proposals in the consultation document 'Schools that work for everyone' (Published by the Department for Education (DfE) 12 September 2016))

Consideration was given to a report which summarised the key proposals in the consultation document 'Schools that work for everyone' (Published by the Department for Education (DfE) 12 September 2016) and included a proposed response to the consultation for the Committee to consider and comment upon.  It was reported that the consultation would close on 12 December 2016.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the draft consultation response contained in the report, and some of the comments made included the following:

·         It was queried how 'families just managing' were defined.  Members were advised that this query had been included in the consultation response, as officers also required clarification on this, as the government was silent on how these families would be identified.  It was suggested that the IDACI (Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index) measure should be used.

·         In terms of 'good school places' it was queried how 'good schools' would be defined – would this be defined by Ofsted, family satisfaction, academic excellence or those which offered career opportunities.  It was commented that if it referred to those schools defined as 'good' by Ofsted, then there was a need to have confidence in the people making those decisions.

·         In relation to question 13, it was queried what measures could be used to demonstrate to the government that more funding was required for pupils with SEND.  Officers advised that this issue had been included in the response, and asked what the policy around SEND would be as it did not feature in the consultation document.

·         It was queried what the costs to local authorities would be, for example, if grammar schools wanted to expand, how would that cost be met.  Members were advised that if a school was expanding due to there not being enough places in an area then the expansion would be funded by the local authority as it would receive a sufficiency grant.  If it was the school's choice to expand, the capital costs would be covered by the government.  However, the local authority would still be responsible for costs such as school transport.

·         In relation to admissions policies, it was noted that any new schools would be free schools, and therefore the local authority would have no role in the administering of that policy, other than to ensure that it was lawful.

·         The response recognised the contribution that non-selective schools made to the education landscape in Lincolnshire, and it was queried whether this message could be strengthened further.

·         It was commented that this consultation document was damaging to non-selective schools.

·         There was support for the idea of asking universities to work in partnership with schools, and it was suggested whether there could be some sort of local bursary scheme.

·         Concerns were raised that if more free schools opened, there could be a surplus of places.

·         It was commented that the 11 plus was a system that was highly damaging and unfair way of assessing children, and it was queried how it could be revised.

·         It was commented that it was not believed that 'one size fits all' in terms of schools.  In relation to question 8, there was a need for caution about any concept that independent schools were better.  It was accepted that they were different, but not necessarily better.  However, it was noted that what they did do differently was give children and young people confidence to achieve.  It was suggested that this level of confidence needed to be brought into other schools.

·         In relation to question 6 – a different way of identifying these children was required.  It was suggested that it should be the child who no-one noticed (who was quiet in class, didn't get into trouble etc.) that needed assistance, to help them build their confidence.

·         In relation to question 19 – it was suggested that this needed to be a natural process, otherwise the only way for grammar schools to expand would be to take the higher achievers from other schools or lower the entrance criteria.

·         In relation to question 28 – it was suggested that as well as acknowledging the ability of non-selective schools to benefit from selective ones, the ability of selective schools to benefit from non-selective ones should also be noted.  There was a need for caution around the perceived status of selective schools as it was felt that grammar schools were different, not necessarily better.

·         It was commented that teaching children with different abilities was not the problem, the problems arose when a child had such serious behavioural problems that they were excluded from previous schools.  It was felt that these children should not be in a mainstream school, but a specialist unit where they could be worked with on an individual basis.  The benefits and disadvantages to this option were discussed.

·         It was commented that Church of England schools were not seen as faith schools, and the Diocese was working to remove the faith criteria from their admissions policy.

·         The importance of a well-designed consultation was highlighted and it was commented that the questions on this consultation were designed to get particular answers, as the questions did not provide an opportunity to describe the value of a non-selective education.  It was felt that there was a need to challenge the questions themselves.

·         It was felt that there was a need to challenge the assumption that selective schools were better, and it was thought that this message needed to be stronger throughout the consultation response.

·         It was requested whether the answer to question 21 could be amended to read 'as Lincolnshire already offers a partial selective system, we cannot support the conversion of non-selective schools to selective schools'. Upon being put to the vote, this motion was lost.

·         In relation to question 19, it was suggested that the last paragraph be strengthened to state the 11plus system should be scrapped.  Upon being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

·         Officers agreed to update the response to reflect that non-selective schools were considered to be just as good as selective schools.

RESOLVED

1.    That the comments made in relation to the draft consultation response be noted, and the response be amended by officers accordingly.

2.    That the final consultation response be brought back to the meeting on 25 November 2016 for endorsement.