List of written evidence
Page
1
Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
Ev 12, Ev 167, Ev 301
2
Local Government Association (LGA)
Ev 13
3
Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)
Ev 50
4
National Union of Teachers (NUT)
Ev 52
5
National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT)
Ev 68
6
Secondary Heads Association (SHA)
Ev 71
7
UNISON
Ev 74
8
National Governors’ Council
Ev 89
9
National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations (NCPTA)
Ev 94
10
Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT)
Ev 99
11
Dr Melvyn Kershaw, Head Teacher, Haybridge High School and Sixth Form
Ev 120
12
Professor Simon Burgess, University of Bristol
Ev 129
13
Children’s Inter Agency Group
Ev 168
14
The Independent Association of Sheffield School Governing Bodies (SASGB)
Ev 169
15
Confed
Ev 170
16
The Association of Greenwich Governors’
Ev 178
17
Ron Glatter
Ev 179
18
Association of Professionals in Education and Children’s Trusts (Aspect)
Ev 182
19
Chris Payne
Ev 184
20
Professor David Gillborn, University of London
Ev 187
21
Socialist Education Association (SEA)
Ev 191
22
Lancashire County Council
Ev 192
23
Association of Croydon Governors (ACG)
Ev 193
24
School-Home Support
Ev 194
25
Volunteer Reading Help
Ev 196
26
British Humanist Association (BHA)
Ev 197
27
Human Scale Education
Ev 201
28
Tameside School Governors’ Forum
Ev 204
29
Christian, Action, Research and Education (CARE)
Ev 204
30
nasen
Ev 209
31
Independent Panel for Special Education Advice (IPSEA)
Ev 211
32
Independent Schools Council (ISC)
Ev 213
33
The Advisory Centre for Education (ACE)
Ev 214
34
Catholic Education Service (CES)
Ev 223
35
Durham City Council
Ev 225
36
Save the Children
Ev 226
37
Royal College of Nursing (RCN)
Ev 227
38
Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG)
Ev 229
39
Mayor of London
Ev 240
40
The Education Network (TEN)
Ev 243
41
Philip Davies MP
Ev 246
42
Comprehensive Future
Ev 246
43
Anne West and Hazel Pennell, Centre for Educational Research, LSE
Ev 251
44
London Governors’ Network
Ev 255
45
Campaign for State Education (CASE)
Ev 257
46
National Family and Parenting Institute (NFPI)
Ev 264
47
Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies Alliance (SEMTA)
Ev 267
48
Lynne Jones MP
Ev 269
49
General Teaching Council (GTC)
Ev 275
50
Institute of Electrical Engineers (IEE)
Ev 279
51
Information for School and College Governors (ISCG)
Ev 281
52
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)
Ev 285
53
CfBT Trust Schools
Ev 287
54
Michael Fabricant MP
Ev 289
55
Tony Baldry MP
Ev 289
56
Ian Stewart MP
Ev 293
57
Dean Penford, Higher Education Champion Nottingham North
Ev 293
58
Dr Doug Naysmith MP
Ev 294
59
Martin Linton MP
Ev 295
60
Paul Farrelly MP
Ev 296
61
Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP)
Ev 298
62
Bill Olner MP
Ev 300
List of unprinted written evidence
Additional papers have been received from the following and have been reported to the
House but to save printing costs they have not been printed and copies have been placed
in the House of Commons Library where they may be inspected by Members. Other copies
are in the Record Office, House of Lords and are available to the public for inspection.
Requests for inspection should be addressed to the Record Office, House of Lords, London
SW1. (Tel 020 7219 3074). Hours of inspection are from 9:30am to 5:00pm on Mondays to
Fridays.
Professor Stephen Gorard, University of York
Christopher Price
London Borough of Hounslow
Bedfordshire and Luton Branch of the Socialist Educational Association
Dr Christine O’Hanlon, Honorary Reader in Education, UEA
Chris Dunne, Headteacher, Langdon Park School, London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Field Studies Council (FSC)
Professor John Micklewright, University of Southampton
Mike Wood MP
Dave Anderson MP
The Rt Hon Michael Jack MP
Audit Commission
321742PAG1
Page Type [SO]
26-01-06 22:17:44
Pag Table: COENEW
PPSysB
Unit: PAG1
Education and Skills Committee: Evidence
Ev 1
Oral evidence
Taken before the Education and Skills Committee
on Wednesday 2 November 2005
Members present:
Mr Barry Sheerman, in the Chair
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Helen Jones
Mr David Chaytor
Mr Gordon Marsden
JeV Ennis
Stephen Williams
Tim Farron
Mr Rob Wilson
Witness: Rt Hon Ruth Kelly, a Member of the House of Commons, Secretary of State for Education and
Skills, Department for Education and Skills, examined.
Q1 Helen Jones:
I want to explore with you some of
schools were set up to deal with the poorest pupils in
the inner cities; yet some city academies are now
the evidence underlying the policies set out in the
White Paper and in particular the Government lays
taking very few pupils from the ward in which they
are situated. For example, Bexley takes 27.8% of its
great stress in the White Paper on the success of its
academy programme and argues that they have
pupils from outside the LA. Greig takes 25% from
outside the LA. There are others in that position too.
raised standards amongst the poorest children but
the figures from your own Department show that a
The question that follows is that, if these academies
are dealing with a diVerent cohort of pupils from
number of academies have far fewer children on free
school meals than their predecessor schools. In
their predecessor schools, is not any argument about
the results rather meaningless because you are not
Walsall, for instance, it dropped from over 50% to
15.9%; in Bexley, it dropped from 45.9 to 37.9;
comparing like with like? The argument that they
have improved results underlines a lot of what is in
King’s, if I have worked out the average of its two
predecessor schools right, dropped from just over
the White Paper but you are not dealing with the
same cohort of pupils.
43% to 31.5%. How can you argue that these
academies are dealing with the poorest children
Ruth Kelly: That is not right. To take the 14
academies that were looked at in The Guardian, there
when the evidence shows that a number of
academies are dealing with fewer poorer children
were 13,670 pupils in those 14 academies compared
to 11,840 in their predecessor schools. They are
than they did in the first place?
Ruth Kelly: I know that is what the media has been
attracting more pupils. They replaced predecessor
sink schools but nobody wanted to send their pupils
saying but it is not right.
to them. They are now serving not only those pupils
but also drawing in pupils from further away
Q2 Helen Jones:
They are the figures from your own
because they are good schools. The net result has
Department.
been
that
not
only
are
they
serving
the
Ruth Kelly: I am extremely pleased that this point
disadvantaged pupils; they are also serving others as
has been raised. If you look at the figures on free
well. You quote one academy and I am not sure
school meals in predecessor schools, there were 980.
which it is. I do not have the individual figures here
If you look at the number of pupils on free school
but across the board the number of children on free
meals in academies now, it is 1,100. Academies have
school meals being educated in academies compared
improved their performance. They are attracting
with predecessor schools has risen. They are also
more children to the school on free school meals and
serving other children. That is a sign of success.
more children whose parents otherwise would not
have looked at those schools at all. The result has
been that not only are they catering for pupils at
Q4 Helen Jones:
I do not doubt they are attracting
predecessor schools; they are also catering for other
other children but my question was if you are not
pupils. The proportion of children on free school
dealing with the same cohort of pupils the
meals has therefore fallen. The total numbers have
Government’s argument about the results is a very
risen. This must be a very good testament to the
diYcult one to make a case for because you are not
success of academies in raising standards and
comparing like with like, are you? The whole
attracting pupils.
argument is that they have improved results for
poorer pupils but the cohort of pupils that they are
dealing with in many academies is a diVerent one
Q3 Helen Jones:
Greig City Academy has 320 pupils
eligible for free school meals out of 710. Its
from their predecessor schools. That is correct, is it
not? You have just said that.
predecessor school had 338. I could go through the
whole list but I am not sure the numbers stack up.
Ruth Kelly: They are very popular and they are
drawing in more pupils as a result. You have to ask
Can I also draw your attention to the answer you
gave me on where the pupils are coming from? These
yourself why are they popular. It is probably because
Dostları ilə paylaş: |