The Schools White Paper
Yüklə 4,61 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Rt Hon Ruth Kelly
- Ruth Kelly
- Q2 Helen Jones
- Q4 Helen Jones
- Q3 Helen Jones
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 Yüklə 4,61 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|