Catherine spoke today during the education and skills part of the debate on the Queen’s Speech, and her contribution can be read below:
Catherine McKinnell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). I agreed with much of what he said. It is also good to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Dave Anderson), who made a powerful speech about the current devolution offer from the Government. He is right to raise concerns, but the deal that has been presented must be a stepping stone to the real devolution that the North East deserves. I hope that Gateshead can find its way back to rejoin the process, as we are much stronger together as a region.
I, along with many Members on both sides of the House, cautiously welcomed the climbdown that appeared to have taken place from the nonsensical idea of forcing all schools down the path of academisation by 2020. It is true that the Education for All Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech did not include the wholesale forced academisation of our schools through legislation, but the Government continue to state that the Bill is being brought forward:
‘to lay foundations for educational excellence in all schools, giving every child the best start in life’ —
an aim which every Member in this Chamber shares—but that this will be done by moving:
‘towards a system where all schools are academies, and all schools are funded fairly.’
Despite there being no evidence that academisation leads to improved performance, we are informed that one of the main ‘benefits’ of the Bill will be to:
‘convert schools to academies in the worst performing local authorities and those that can no longer viably support their remaining schools, so that a new system led by good and outstanding schools can take their place.’
Given that the Education Services Grant, which funds local authority spending on school improvement services, the management of school buildings and the tackling of non-attendance, was cut by £200 million, or 20%, in 2015-16, and is to be cut by £600 million, or 75%, from 2016-17 to 2019-20, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify which councils the Government expect will still be able to support their local schools viably in such financial circumstances.
As the National Association of Head Teachers has pointed out, the Bill will mean that:
‘good and outstanding schools can still be made to convert, regardless of the professional judgement of school leaders, the opposition of parents and the best interests of local communities. Schools have had the chance to convert over many years, and many have considered and rejected this as a way forward.’
Of course, we know that many other schools are already ‘choosing’ — I put that non-modal verb in inverted commas — to go down the path of academisation because they would rather jump before they are pushed. Many will have started down that path following the announcement of forced academisation of all schools at the Budget, and will continue down it because they can see that the Government’s professed U-turn and promises of having listened to everyone’s concerns are clearly not all that they are cracked up to be.
The Education for All Bill also promises to make school funding fairer, with a national funding formula that will ensure that:
‘schools with the same kinds of pupils get the same funding.’
Can the Minister clarify whether the Government intend to go ahead with the area cost adjustment multiplier to the formula, which would see schools in my region, the North East, losing out?
As the Director of Schools North East commented:
‘Ironically, the Government risks fuelling the North-South divide in education by proposing to fund schools with similar characteristics differently, based on their location. This means that our region will be losing funds to the south, where most high-cost areas are located. The rationale behind this is flawed.’
These concerns are extremely timely, given the findings of an IPPR North report earlier this week that secondary schools in the North of England – or the Northern Powerhouse, to give us our correct title – are receiving £1,300 per pupil less than schools in London. The situation needs rectifying, and quickly, if the Northern Powerhouse is ever to become anything more than an empty announcement.
The Children and Social Work Bill seeks to shorten the time it takes for children to be placed in a secure, stable, loving family, as well as placing additional duties on local authorities to ensure that children and young people leaving the care system are provided with support. Again, there is not a Member in the House who would not support those aims.
We have only to look at the Prison Reform Trust report by Lord Laming, which was published this week, to be reminded that too many of our children in care are being let down. The report found that up to half the children in custody in England and Wales have been in the care system at some point. Indeed, 23% of the adult prison population have been in care, which suggests that something has gone badly wrong in our system.
As Barnardo’s has highlighted, the Bill is the second piece of legislation to address adoption in as many years, so the Government’s rhetoric really must now be translated into action on the ground. However, as Barnardo’s also made clear, this is a complex challenge. Three thousand children in the UK are waiting to be adopted, and they are waiting an average of two years, although some wait as long as three and a half years if they are older. I therefore strongly welcome any measures that will genuinely and sustainably help to speed the process up.
For those leaving the care system – about 10,000 young people in England each year – the Government pledge to ensure there is greater support, as well as the right to a personal adviser up to the age of 25. Everybody would welcome both those moves because current service provision simply does not meet demand, and I would argue that that is because one crucial piece of the jigsaw is missing.
The ‘It’s time’ campaign by the NSPCC has powerfully highlighted that almost two thirds of children and young people entering the care system have experienced abuse and neglect, and they are more likely to have mental health needs. However, we are not properly counting and tracking abused and neglected children, including those in the care system, so we do not know whether they are receiving the correct therapeutic support, at the time they need it, to rebuild their lives.
The findings of the Education Committee’s inquiry into the wellbeing and mental health of looked-after children, which was published last month, were truly stark, and they simply must be addressed if the Government are serious about tackling this issue. The Committee heard incredibly powerful evidence from a 16-year-old woman, who told us she had been waiting for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services for more than two and a half years but that she had been unable to access them because she had not been in a stable placement – indeed, she had been moved 13 times during that period. CAMHS are often unwilling to treat a child if they move placement, even if that is within the same local authority area. That is clearly unacceptable and, indeed, counterproductive.
It is no good pledging support to children and young people leaving the care system if they are not provided with the support they need on entering it. That is why the Education Committee rightly recommended that all children should have specialist mental health assessments on entering care and regularly throughout their time in care, and that they should receive timely and appropriate advice before they reach crisis point.
We need to see that key change if we are to increase the number of successful adoptions and long-term placements, and to improve the outcomes for those leaving the care system. That is a fundamental building block in achieving the aims I have set out – it is not an added extra – and I strongly urge the Government to consider including it in their reforms.