The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 3 February.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on this Government’s plans to reform school accountability.
Before I begin, I want to say that I am devastated to hear that a boy has died after a stabbing at a school in Sheffield. My heart goes out to his family, friends and the entire school community at this very distressing time. We are in contact with the school and the council to offer support, and investigations are under way. Nothing is more important than the safety of our children.
This Government are clear about the need to secure the very best education for our young people, and we are determined that our schools are reformed to deliver that ambition to enable every child to achieve and thrive. That reform begins at the very start of a child’s journey, with an early years system that sets up our children for the best start in life. That means brilliant schools, with excellent, qualified staff, driving high and rising standards in all parts of our country. It reflects our determination to ensure that we break, in the generations ahead, the unfair link between background and opportunity.
Like so many in this House, I know the value of a brilliant school because I went to one in the west end of Newcastle, in the north-east. My school set high standards for all its pupils. It nurtured my talents and love of learning, and it propelled me forward to university and a career in law. So I know full well that the system can work and that a good school can be an incredible force for good. My school set high standards and expected us all to aim high. High standards and high expectations are this Government’s vision for every child and every school in our country. We will set no ceiling on what children can achieve.
We must recognise that Members from all parts of the House, including David Blunkett and Michael Gove, have driven forward great educational reform. Reform has also been driven by the dedication and determination of teachers across the country. I benefited from the first statutory national curriculum, introduced by Lord Baker in 1988. The arrival of Ofsted and the common inspection framework brought far greater rigour to school inspections. Numeracy hour and literacy hour brought a clear focus to the impact and importance of high-quality teaching, in and of itself. Performance tables brought new transparency for parents, and SATs showed children’s attainment across key stages for the first time.
The sponsored academy programme, started by Labour and expanded by the Conservatives, has been instrumental in raising standards in many schools. Multi-academy trusts brought diversity, innovation and a drive for improvement to our schools. The focus on evidence and pragmatism was embodied in the Education Endowment Foundation. There was a switch to phonics in the wake of the Rose review, and a focus on a curriculum rich in knowledge. All those reforms brought changes to our system, transforming the life chances of millions of children.
We understand, better than any previous generation, what works to drive up standards for children. We know, more clearly than ever before, that a great education for every child is not an impossible promise but one that Governments can and must deliver. We are determined, more fiercely than ever before, to use that understanding and knowledge to take our schools forward. However, in the past decade, the ambition for excellence which had powered Governments from the left and the right, and the appetite for reforms that delivered better life chances for our children, have faded, and the system has drifted.
Conservative Members may not like hearing that, so let me remind them about this Government’s inheritance in July, which tells a less happy story: a third of children are finishing primary school without the reading, writing and maths skills they need; children with special educational needs are struggling to get the right support, after spending years in a system that is not serving them; the attainment gap between those from well-off backgrounds and those who are less privileged is shamefully wide; young people in London are 70% more likely to enter university compared with their peers in the north-east, where I went to school; and hundreds of thousands of children are in schools that are stuck, receiving poor Ofsted judgments year on year.
This Government are impatient for our children’s success. They get only one childhood, so we will not rest in ensuring that they get the best education they can, and we will not tolerate our children being let down. We will not sit back and await changes in schools from governance changes alone. This Labour Government will stop at nothing to improve schools and children’s life chances. We can and must build on the legacy of reform, reignite the ambition for excellence and drive the change our children need, to push once more for high and rising standards in every school, and to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child.
A key part of that change must be a reformed and improved approach to both inspection and accountability that champions good practice, encourages collaboration in schools and, crucially, shines a light on all areas of strength and weakness. Today, the Department for Education and Ofsted are together setting out plans for a new era of accountability, and a renewed ambition for every child and every school. Schools that are stuck but have the capacity to improve must be supported and pushed to do so. We will get our new RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—teams, whose members are expert school leaders, in early. We will use them to facilitate faster improvement, using knowledge, experience and the reports of reformed, high-quality inspections to turn schools around. We will work to chart a path to progress, and intervene in way that is effective, bespoke and proportionate, making a difference as early as possible. Today, we are announcing over £20 million for the new RISE teams over the next 15 months. Our first 20 advisers are already in place. They will work with schools across the country to drive improvement and share best practice, because when one school fails, we have all failed the children of that school.
This new era of accountability will come with a new era of inspection. Single headline grades pushed our system on and brought proper scrutiny to our schools, but the time for change has come. They had become high stakes for schools but inadequate to drive the change that our children need—too blunt, too rough and too vague, leaving too many schools without a proper diagnosis and not clear on how to improve. We need a more diagnostic approach that is targeted and focused, raising the bar on what we expect from schools, with the ingredients of a great education each given their own grade, new report cards identifying excellence and shining a light on performance, clarity for parents, and challenge backed by support for schools.
Those diagnostics will drive our approach to improvement. The worst-performing schools, whether local authority-maintained or academies, will be moved to a strong trust. We will never flinch from bringing in new leadership when children’s life chances demand it, but in this new era of accountability we want schools to support each other. We will foster a self-improving system, where all seek to raise their standards. A proposed new top grade of ‘exemplary’ will signal educational practice that is simply too good for schools to keep to themselves. When a school is awarded ‘exemplary’ in any area, what it is doing should be shared across the country so that others can learn from the very best. Our quest for high and rising standards is universal. We want good schools to become great, and great schools to become even better, sharing their excellence along the way.
Reformed accountability will underpin everything else that we do in education, whether that is delivering better special educational needs and disabilities provision in mainstream schools, or getting to the bottom of the attendance crisis. Inclusion and attendance will both be part of raising standards across our schools.
The changes that we are making to accountability will draw on the wisdom of the entire sector. Today, the department and Ofsted launch 12-week consultations, seeking the views of those who know the school system best—teachers, school leaders and parents—on the principles needed for inspection, support and intervention. Ofsted has already drawn on the findings of its Big Listen initiative to inform its approach to future inspections, but further action is needed. Ofsted’s consultation will seek the views of parents, carers, professionals and learners on how Ofsted conducts inspections and the way it reports them. The consultation includes proposals for new inspection methodology, alongside the proposed inspection framework, toolkits and report cards, to change how inspections look and feel for schools. Consultation and parental involvement are essential. Neither the Government nor Ofsted alone can drive up standards for children. We have excellent schools and trusts across our country, which have come about thanks to the hard work of school leaders, teachers and others, and reforms passed in this House. They have raised standards down the decades.
The Government believe that the best way to celebrate success is to multiply it, because where someone is born, their family, their city and their parents’ income should not determine their access to the life-changing power of a good education. The measures for school accountability that I have outlined will support and challenge every school to do better for its pupils, share its successes, and bring high and rising standards to every corner of the country, so that every child can go to a good local school, and look forward to a bright future. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, no one in this House will disagree with the Government’s aspirations for every child in this country to receive a great education and to leave school with the qualifications and confidence they need to go on to the next stage, whether that is education or work, and to realise their potential. No one would disagree that this needs to be done as quickly as possible.
Indeed, under the previous Government, one of the top priorities of the Secretary of State was to reduce the number of children studying in schools that, at that time, were judged to be “Inadequate”—or “2RI+”, as we called them in the jargon; everyone has their secret language—or those that had had multiple Ofsted judgments below “Good”. In the past two years in office, we reduced that figure by over 200,000 children to around 500,000. I am glad that the Government are continuing with that focus, but I suggest that the figure is not the 300,000 that the Government are talking about; it is around 500,000. Just the redefinition that the Government have brought means that 200,000 fewer children risk not getting the intervention that their school needs.
Where we part ways on the ambition is on how we get there. One of the first actions that this Government took was to stop intervention in schools that were judged to be “2RI+”. These are literally the schools where the Government are now saying that they need to see change and will potentially intervene. Some of these schools were “2RI+”, but many had had four, five or more judgments and had had never been “Good” in their history. That is two full cohorts of children going through a school that is judged not to be “Good”.
While the Statement talks about earlier intervention, fostering a self-improving system and putting in support from the RISE teams, in reality, last year’s decision to stop intervention into “2RI+” schools will slow things down, and it will be the children in those schools who pay the price. It will be interesting to see whether the new Government can maintain the pace of the previous Government in reducing the number of children in stuck schools: not by taking action in those schools, but by actually moving them to “Good”—or “Secure”, in the new Ofsted language.
My Lords, not having been a Minister, I am not sure of these terms such as 2RI+, but perhaps I will learn.
In Oral Questions this morning, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised the question of teachers—a very important topic. Not only do we need good teachers, but we also need good schools. It is important that we retain a robust inspection system. Inspections should remain a vital part of the accountability process for schools and councils, and we should extend inspections to multi-academy trusts. However, their purpose needs to be thought through carefully. Where a school is struggling, poor inspection results should lead to greater support. We very much welcome the new regional teams to turn around the so-called stuck schools in England, which have received back-to-back negative judgments from Ofsted.
We would abandon the idea that a school’s performance should be reduced to a single grade. Instead, inspections should identify how a school is performing across a wide range of issues, such as curriculum breadth, provision for SEND pupils, teacher workload and pupil well-being, so that parents can decide for themselves whether a school suits their child’s needs. We should lower the stakes of a school inspection so that deciding to intervene in a school or change its governance arrangements does not depend on a single grade. Instead, inspectors should work alongside schools, councils and academy trusts as critical friends, providing the evidence that a school needs to identify its strengths and weaknesses and how it needs to improve.
Does the Minister think that the proposals outlined by her Government can really change the culture around Ofsted inspections? The framework does not include SEND provision or SEND inclusivity as a stand-alone assessment area. As we try to fix the SEND crisis, should this not form a key part of any assessment of schools?
Safeguarding will be assessed separately from other elements of the Ofsted report. How will this be organised and who will carry it out? Can the Minister reassure the House that safeguarding will remain a key area being assessed?
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her recognition that this Statement represents the objective that, I believe, is shared across this House: to ensure that every child in every school is getting the very best opportunities to learn; and that, where there is a need to improve the provision being provided in a school, that happens as effectively and as quickly as possible. That is because every day that a child spends in a school that is not performing as well as it needs to is a day lost to that child at a crucial part of their life.
It is with that objective in mind, of course, that the Government outlined on Monday the consultation on the approach that will be taken to accountability, intervention and improvement, alongside the consultation being carried out by Ofsted on the revised inspection framework. The development of the report card will provide considerably more information, granularity and insight for parents in determining that most difficult of choices—where they want their child to go to school—and for the schools themselves and others to determine areas of improvement and where they need to see more work. As the noble Baroness said, one of the most important priorities is to able to intervene and improve schools as quickly as possible and appropriately. I will come to that in a moment.
The noble Baroness started with a reasonable barrage of statistics. I will do my best to respond to the suggestions that she made but I may well need to follow up some of those points subsequently in a letter. The first thing she said was that the number of pupils in underperforming schools was 500,000, not 300,000. To be clear, the figure of 300,000 was for those schools that are stuck in a period of persistent underperformance. This Government are unwilling to allow that consistent underperformance to continue and we have been clear that we need to have a wider range of improvement tools than has been the case previously.
The noble Baroness characterised the RISE teams as being within the department, but these are teams based in regions, made up of people who have enormous background in and experience of school improvement, many of whom come from multi-academy trusts and who are in a position both to support the turnaround of schools that are not performing adequately and to ensure that those schools that are not seeing improvements over a period of time are challenged and supported to make that improvement. To be clear, for those stuck schools, if, after two years of this targeted intervention, they were not improving, once again, the option of structural intervention and change would be considered.
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on giving so much attention to school standards and to some urgency on school improvement, but does my noble friend agree that by far the most important quality that is needed in any school is first-class teachers? Perhaps she could reassure the House that the consultation will not be just about Ofsted, although obviously there will be a lot of consideration of some of the issues about changing the Ofsted structure. What will be done to improve in-service training for teachers who are not achieving what they should be and who are neither inspiring, nor exciting, nor encouraging their children’s aspirations successfully? This needs to happen, especially for disadvantaged pupils. Can she tell the House a little about what is being done, apart from the RISE scheme, to improve both school leadership and the quality of classroom teaching?
My noble friend makes a very important point about teachers. In fact, probably less than an hour and a half ago, we were engaged in a discussion across the Dispatch Box about the significance of teachers. She is absolutely right. What I would say about these two consultations running side-by-side with respect to teachers really goes back to my final point in my previous response. I think it is valuable for teachers to have not just that headline grade that was previously the case with Ofsted, but the more granular understanding of where there are strengths within the school, where there are areas for improvement, where, as I said, there is exemplary practice that needs to be shared more widely—and, incidentally, how they can get access to that good practice in other areas, to improve their practice and their school.
My noble friend also makes an important point about training. We are as a Government working on how to not just recruit additional teachers but keep them in the classroom and ensure that they are able to improve and gain in competence and skill. That is why, in looking at and reviewing the national professional qualifications, we will want to consider those forms of training and opportunities for continuing professional development that will really focus on the areas that teachers need and that will make the most difference to the pupils they are teaching.
My Lords, I apologise—twice: once for being late for this debate and once for being a bit keen. Ofsted is a real problem, and there is quite a simple solution. A friend of mine, who is a teacher, told me a story. They were told, “Ofsted is coming tomorrow. The school will be open all night”. That is not a fair reflection of the school or the teachers. If Ofsted goes in twice, the first time is a snap inspection. It sits down with the leadership and talks through where they are going wrong and where they are going right. Nine months or a year later, Ofsted goes back, and that is the inspection that gets published. That takes the pressure off everybody and gives a fair result. Will the Minister reflect those ideas back to the consultation? I think they will listen more to her than to me.
Given the noble Lord’s background as a teacher, I am sure that Ofsted will listen to his response to the consultation, which I hope he will make. While I have some sympathy with the concerns of teachers about the arrival of Ofsted—having experienced it myself, as I have already said—I am not wholly convinced that students can afford to wait nine months between the preparatory conversation and the point at which some judgment is made. Frankly, if things are going wrong, it is important for students and parents that those are identified at the appropriate time, and, if things are going right, it is important that those are shared as widely as possible.
My Lords, on the move from the duty to intervene to the power to intervene when a school is inadequate, the schools the Minister outlined that have taken a long time often have complicated land or financial issues, as I am sure she is aware. Trusts already go in before the legal status has changed, and for schools that go through the process relatively quickly, there are occasions when the fact that everybody knows there is a duty to academise speeds things up. The Minister will be aware that, by virtue of these contracts, the Department for Education is now a regulator; it regulates schools. Is there another example of a regulator, such as the Charity Commission or the FCA, that does not have a duty to intervene and merely relies on these powers?
The noble Baroness will know from her experience that the ability to academise a school does not depend on a duty in every case, and nor did it do so under the last Government. The 2RI policy was a power for academisation to happen in those cases, not a duty. I am not sure I would characterise the department in quite the way she did; nevertheless, it comes back to this point: what is the most appropriate range of interventions that can be used to ensure that the improvement we see in the schools that need it is as speedy, well supported and appropriate as possible? For example, the distinction between schools that have the leadership capacity to improve themselves, and those that do not, is an important one. The RISE teams, with their targeted interventions for schools that need it, and their broader universal offer to direct schools looking to improve in the right areas, are an important addition to ensure that all our schools are improving quickly.
I remind noble Lords of my entry in the register of interests as the chair of the multi-academy trust E-ACT. My noble friend will know that some argue that the Secretary of State has oversteered back towards a model of school improvement based on fear. What reassurance can she give that Ofsted will go further to ensure that inspections are more consistent and more supportive, and when can we expect much-needed universal inspections of MATs, with a move to more risk-based inspections, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran?
Importantly, as a result of the Big Listen, Ofsted is also publishing as part of the consultation considerably more information on how schools will be assessed. For example, publication of toolkits and the consultations gives schools much more of an opportunity to know the basis on which they are going to be inspected, and more of an idea about what counts as good and where improvement might be needed. My noble friend is right: that will be an important way of ensuring that balance between challenge and an appropriate way for schools to understand what needs to happen in order to improve. We are committed to introducing MATs inspections, and we will engage with the sector and bring forward legislation when time allows. This is an important area, like the Ofsted consultation and the department’s consultation, and we are genuinely open to ensuring that this works appropriately, gets the balance right and ensures that children’s education is being improved.
My Lords, the proposed five-tier report card for schools is receiving much airtime, but can the Minister tell us what is being done to measure the effectiveness of Ofsted inspectors? This follows on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Knight. Should there not be an appraisal system with report cards, bearing in mind the many negative anecdotes from headteachers about inspections that we have heard about during this short debate, and bearing in mind the sensitivities, particularly with multiple inspections, that affect headteachers?
The quality of the inspections that Ofsted carries out is important, as is the capacity and training of Ofsted inspectors to provide that. That, of course, is the responsibility of the chief inspector and the structures in Ofsted, but I am sure that everybody takes the noble Viscount’s point that there needs to be quality in those who are inspecting our schools, as well as the expected quality in those who are directly delivering education.
Further to the comments by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Berridge, about the need for forced academisation, does my noble friend agree that there is no evidence that the only help available to an underperforming school is for it to become an academy? Support is available in the maintained sector—an issue we will come to in more detail when the schools Bill is developed—but it is a fallacy to suggest that that is the only hope for underperforming schools.
It is appropriate that the two consultations published this week were published on the same day, and that the consultation periods ended on the same date. However, I am a bit concerned about the Ofsted proposals. I know that the report is based on the Big Listen, but as I understand it, some aspects of it are already being trialled in certain schools. Does it not bring into question just how accurate it is to describe the document as a consultation, if, as it seems, some people have made decisions already?
I can assure my noble friend that, in both cases, they are genuine consultations. The objective of ensuring that all our children are in good schools is shared not just across this House but by parents, teachers, inspectors, school leaders and many others involved in the education sector, and that is why I can assure my noble friend that this is a genuine consultation. Here, trialling can sometimes be part of the consultation, to determine whether things are running successfully. Personally, I think it is possible to trial and pilot, and to consult, to get the broadest input into ensuring that the right decisions are made after that.
When the Minister responds, could she confirm what the Government’s target is for the number of children in these schools over the next 12 months? What reduction does she expect from the Government’s activity? Can she also comment on Ofsted’s proposals for multiple monitoring visits if a school is in special measures? I think I have understood correctly that six visits are proposed in two years or, if a school requires significant improvement, five visits in 18 months. We were talking earlier in your Lordships’ House about teacher recruitment. How does she think teachers will feel about having so many follow-up visits?
Ofsted has said that it plans to look at nine different areas of school performance, including explicitly looking at attendance, which, of course, we warmly welcome, but nine areas and five possible grades for each mean 45 potential outcomes for schools. Even the most resilient teachers and leaders describe this as stressful. I fear it could end up being almost meaningless, and that is not what Ofsted, the Government or schools want or need. What consideration did the Government or Ofsted give to rethinking the inspection process and having a much more risk-led approach to inspection, rather than the universal blanket approach that we followed in the past?
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill risks making things worse, with the proposal to replace the duty on the Secretary of State to intervene in a school that is judged to be in special measures with just a power. We have already seen the Secretary of State reverse a decision to intervene in a school when threatened with a judicial review. The whole system risks being paralysed by JRs and, again, it will be the children who suffer.
The guidance the Government have put out so far makes it clear that the department will not intervene based on academic performance. The noble Baroness and all her colleagues in the department, and those on this side of the House, all care passionately about the disadvantage attainment gap. I urge the Minister to talk to her colleagues about this. She has heard me say—probably more than once—that there are schools in the same local authority, with the same profiles of deprivation, which have radically different levels of attainment for their pupils. Those attainment gaps are not one-offs: they are sustained over time. It would be really helpful if the Government could set out what they propose to do about this.
I really do not doubt the Government’s commitment to raising standards for every child, but I hope that they will use the consultation period to rethink this approach, which risks ending up with confusion, delay and poorer outcomes for the children in stuck schools. I am reminded of a sponsored academy that I visited in Sefton, one year to the day after it had become an academy and joined a strong multi-academy trust, in this case the Dixons Academies Trust. I asked the pupil who was showing me round what it would have been like if I had visited a year ago. She looked at me in horror and said, “You wouldn’t have been safe in the corridors, miss”. That is the reality for children if we delay intervention, and this Government need to think again.
We must remember that Ruth Perry took her own life after an Ofsted inspection. Given everything that has been said following that heartbreaking tragedy, it is important that, after the 12-week consultation, we get this right.
What the Government are also proposing in this consultation is that up until September 2026, where schools would previously have been in categories of concern, where they are in what we might have thought of as special measures—in other words, where there is not the capacity of the leadership within the school to improve it—there will be immediate structural intervention, but where the leadership could enable that to change, they will be subject to immediate academisation. After September 2026, when we have the RISE teams fully up and running, for those schools where the leadership has the potential to change, we would expect the RISE teams to be focusing on and targeting them to make sure that there is improvement.
Of course, the reason for taking this more sophisticated approach to improvement is precisely because, while there is clearly evidence that being academised can lead to improvement, there is also evidence that in many cases, that can take too long, given the urgency of improving education for our children. Some 40% of academisations take more than a year to convert; 20% take more than two years. We cannot wait for those structural changes to happen, important and impactful though they might be. We need to ensure that children’s chances are improved as quickly as possible.
On the specific questions about the Ofsted consultation, it is important to emphasise that it is a consultation that builds on the Big Listen, which makes important recommendations; for example, about how the inspection will now focus, as noble Lords have said, on nine areas. This is a consultation, but I support the move from a single headline grade, where the emphasis was literally on a headline, which was of course very low in information for parents making that decision but very high stakes for schools, and very much did not encompass the nuance of where a school might be doing well, where it might be more challenged or where it might have exemplary practice that needed to be shared more widely. There is consultation on these areas, but I think the fact that they will now include absence, attendance and inclusion—to respond to the noble Lord’s point about the significance of ensuring that there are improvements around SEND, I think that partly covers that point—is important.
On the safeguarding point, I will write to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness about the specific questions about the proposals for follow-up visits. The noble Lord rightly mentioned the tragic death of Ruth Perry, and the campaigning work of her sister, Professor Julia Waters, has been important for ensuring that Ofsted thought carefully about the approach that it was taking. One of the issues highlighted there was the impact of the safeguarding measure on the overall headline grade. One of the reasons for the different approach to safeguarding that Ofsted is proposing is to avoid that position, where a failure on safeguarding would have the impact that it had in that particular case, while also recognising that it is important that schools are assessed on the basis of the quality of their safeguarding.
On the point about whether or not the Government should have a duty or a power to academise, we will of course have the opportunity, when the Bill comes from the other place, to look in detail at the intention of Clauses 43 and 44, and I look forward to doing that. I just push back against the noble Baroness’s suggestion that in some way or other there has been a pause in this Government’s commitment to intervening where necessary and to ensuring that all our schools are improved. In the case that both she and her right honourable friend in the other place identified, it is not as clear-cut as she says that there was a revocation of the decision to academise. In fact, that was a quite considerable change of circumstance in that particular case.
Let me respond to the point that the noble Lord made about the pressure on teachers. My experience as a teacher, having been on the receiving end of an Ofsted inspection, notwithstanding that it was some time ago, is that, yes, it is stressful, but no teacher wants to teach in a school that is not doing the best for its pupils, and having an improvement, inspection and accountability regime that ensures that teachers are able to successfully support the children who need it will be good for teachers, good for parents, good for schools—and, most importantly, good for children.