Education Bill

My Lords, none of us wants to see underperforming schools letting down pupils year after year. To answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, it is to tackle that entrenched underperformance in certain areas that we are keen to take these measures, which are similar to measures that the previous Government intended to take. We know that out of the 200 worst performing primary schools in the country, over half have been below the floor standard for over 10 years, and 112 of the 200 worst performing primaries are in local authorities that have never issued a warning notice. I know that the previous Government were keen to tackle underperformance, and so are we. Our starting point would certainly be that underperformance should ideally be addressed by locally developed and agreed solutions, and we are seeing more and more examples of local authorities working with the Government and schools to come up with agreed sponsored-academy solutions. Where there is consistent underperformance, however, and the school and local authority seem unable or unwilling to tackle it, we think that the Secretary of State needs to be able to intervene. This is an urgent and important issue so we intend, subject to the passage of the Bill, to commence the provision on Royal Assent. The Secretary of State already has a range of intervention powers. Where schools are eligible for intervention—because they have failed to comply with a warning notice or have been judged to require special measures or to require significant improvement by Ofsted—the Secretary of State can appoint additional governors, impose an interim executive board or make an academy order. The Secretary of State can also require the closure of a school in special measures and direct a local authority to consider issuing a warning notice. It is these two powers that the previous Government’s Children, Schools and Families Act sought to extend, and which Clause 43 of this Bill also seeks to extend. We believe that there is an inconsistency in the current law that means that one intervention option, directing closure, is available only for schools in the Ofsted category of special measures. Where the Secretary of State needs to intervene, he should be able to choose a form of intervention that is most appropriate for the circumstances. If he chooses to direct closure, he has a duty to consult, including with the local authority and the school, and he will have to take account of the views expressed in reaching a fair and reasonable decision. Warning notices are a well established legal tool for addressing underperformance. They can help schools to recognise and address their problems or, if the school is not capable of addressing the action, they can enable further intervention by either the local authority or the Secretary of State. However, it is the case that local authorities use their power to issue warning notices inconsistently. Two-thirds of them have never issued a warning notice at all. That is why the Secretary of State needs to be able to direct the local authority to issue a warning notice: so that they can be used where they are necessary, as opposed to being dependent on the practice of the local authority. However, we accept that there need to be checks and balances. Therefore, we have included a provision giving the governing body a right to appeal to Ofsted against a direction to issue a warning notice. It would remain the case that the Secretary of State would first have to direct a local authority to consider giving a warning notice. It is only if the local authority decided not to do so that the Secretary of State, having considered the reasons given by the local authority, could then direct it to issue a warning notice, subject to that check of the appeal to Ofsted. My noble friend Lady Sharp mentioned underperforming academies. I agree with her that, where an academy is failing, the same kind of tough and decisive action should be taken against it. If such action is necessary, we will take it. The Secretary of State’s recent letter to academies that were below the floor standard and to local authorities with schools below the floor standard demonstrates our sharper focus on underperforming academies. However, as she might expect, we do not believe that the solution should be to withdraw an academy’s freedoms. Those schools would need support to make better use of the autonomy that academy status brings, and we should look at why it has not happened. In the case of an underperforming academy, that would mean ensuring that effective leadership and appropriate support are in place. Through the funding agreement, we can ultimately use our powers to replace the sponsor to make sure that there is a suitable one to take that academy forward. While I accept that no programme will ever be infallible, the evidence shows that academy status and autonomy are working. From 2009 to 2010, results in academies improved by an average of 7.8 percentage points, compared with a national increase of 4.5 percentage points for all maintained schools. Again, this year chains of academies have reported some impressive results. The measures that we propose are a logical extension of the current powers. They follow the direction that the previous Government intended to take but with some added safeguards. With that information, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.