The Committee has summarised and evaluated it's work during the current Parliament in a short film entitled 'Closing the gap', available on the Committee's website. This report is intended to supplement the film and provide an overview of their work in different policy areas during the Parliament. Earlier summaries of their work in individual sessions of this Parliament are available on the website of the Liaison Committee. Based on discussions with key players in the fields of education and children's services the Committee decided that their future focus would be on the long tail of underachievement in education. This theme informed their work for the remainder of the Parliament as they sought to recommend changes to close the gap between disadvantaged children and young people, and their peers
The question of if and how home education should be regulated has been the subject of a series of consultations and research studies commissioned by the Department, which culminated in the Badman review. Debate has centred on the one hand, the absence of prescription in relation to home education and the ability of home educating families to refuse contact with their local authority, and, on the other, the duty on local authorities to ensure that every child in their area is receiving a suitable education. There is much concern over the Badman report recommendation that registration and monitoring be introduced for home educating families which has been taken forward through the Children, Schools and Families Bill. The Committee supports the proposals to introduce annual registration for home educating families but suggests that registration should, at least initially, be voluntary. Any registration system should be accompanied by better information sharing between local authorities, HM Revenue and Customs and other agencies. The Committee also suggests that home educating families should provide some form of statement of their intended approach to their child's education. They believe that ultimately the effectiveness of more robust arrangements for monitoring home education provision will rest on the knowledge and skills of local authority officers. A separate difficulty seen with the Badman report is in its merging education and safeguarding matters. The Committee suggests that existing safeguarding legislation is the appropriate mechanism for the purpose of safeguarding home-educated children
This second report, entitled "The Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Children's Plan", (HCP 213, session 2007-08, ISBN 9780215514691) from the Children, Schools and Families Committee examines the creation of the new Department for Children, Schools and Families. The Department has sole responsibility for early years education and the schooling of children between 5 and 13, but in other areas, such as education for 14-19 year olds, it operates jointly with other Government departments, in partcular the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. The Committee welcomes the Departmental focus on children, but expresses some reservations in regard of joint responsibility which it sees as leading to a lack of clarity in regard of responsibility and a dilution in decision making. The Committee believes clarity on which Department has specific responsibility is important, particularly with the introduction of the new Diploma system for 14-19 year olds. Also the Departments' Children's Plan does not at present have a timetable of action or a clear set of priorities and that the Department needs to be explicit on how it intends to drive improvements in services for children and familes. In total the Committee has set out 14 conclusions and recommendations covering: the new Department; the Children's Plan; Public Service Agreements; schools' funding; efficiency and productivity.
The Care Matters White Paper (Cm. 7137, 2007, ISBN 9780101713726) and the resultant Children and Young Persons Act 2008 (ISBN 9780105423089) showed the priority the Government has put on improving outcomes for looked-after children. But the Committee cautions that success will not flow automatically from new legislation or guidance. Previous programmes of substantial reform and investment have left outcomes for looked-after children still lagging unacceptably far behind those for other children. Inconsistency in practice and underperformance against current standards show that there are significant underlying challenges to implementation of the new raft of measures. The report examines the crucial elements of: relationships - stable reliable bonds with key individuals are fundamental to children's security and development; placements - are in short supply and local authorities need more support to increase availability; the performance framework - the quality of decision-making, of relationships, and of children's experiences of care. Three themes run through the Committee's conclusions. First is the importance of a well-trained, fairly paid, well-supported workforce in delivering the care. Secondly is how local authorities can come to approximate more closely the care of birth parents. Thirdly, there is the voice of the child and more independent support is needed for children to express their views. The care system should not be seen as a sanction against failing parents, nor blight children's future prospects. Care must be an integral part of a continuum of effective family support services for families under stress and not functioning well. Parents should expect that children in care will have stability and personalised attention rather than a life ruled by uncertainty and bureaucracy and will have access to all the health and therapeutic care that they need to enjoy life and develop into independent adults.
The Children, Schools and Families Bill contains a wide range of measures, the most relevant of which for the Committee's purposes are the introduction of a system of "guarantees" for parents and pupils; the introduction of mandatory sex and relationships education in schools; provision about publication of information relating to family proceedings; and the introduction of a licensing scheme for teachers. The Committee welcomes many of the provisions of the Bill, but in this report sets out some points of concern in these areas.
This is the Commitee's scrutiny of the draft Apprenticeships Bill which was published on 16 July 2008. While putting much of the current arrangements for apprenticeships onto a statutory basis, the draft Bill provides greater flexibility to allow employers to design and bring forward for approval their own apprenticeship frameworks. The extent of this flexibility was not clear as a key document, the specification of apprenticeship standards, which will determine the core components of frameworks was not published with the draft Bill. Nor did the Government set out in detail how the National Apprenticeship Service would be resourced or organised, or how the legislation would apply in Wales. These as key omissions impeded the scrutiny process. With this in mind it was concluded that in general the legislation is justified because it has the potential to strengthen the structure for apprenticeshipsin England. However there was a major concern of volume at the expense of quality.The Government must ensure that the draft Bill is re-written to promote, monitor and report on the quality of apprenticeships. Without provisions underpinning quality, the legislation risks the devaluation of apprenticeships, and employers, parents and young people as well as adults will cease to see apprenticeships as a progressive route through to a future career.
The Committee warns that rushing to judge the worth of Sure Start Children's Centres would be catastrophic and could jeopardise one of the most innovative and ambitious initiatives of the last two decades. The report says Children's Centres are designed to address some of the most entrenched aspects of disadvantage, but the majority have been in place for less than four years. Evaluations of their impact will therefore only be meaningful over the long term. Yielding to short term financial pressure by reducing the number of Centres or pruning the range of services offered would be a mistake, the Committee says. A universal service can ensure that all vulnerable children get the access they need, and the wide range of support and activities provided to families is a vital feature of the programme. Stable funding is also essential. The scale of the programme means important challenges remain. With a national network of Centres in place, there must now be a constant focus on raising the quality of staffing and services, and on improving the performance of Centres in reaching the most vulnerable families. Partnership working with health services, in particular GPs, is patchy across the country and Children's Centres must not be an optional extra for health agencies. The Government should re-establish ministerial responsibility for the Sure Start programme in the Department of Health as well as the Department for Children, Schools and Families.Information about value for money in Children's Centres is still unacceptably difficult to come by, the committee adds. More must be done to determine the total resources being put into the initiative from all Government departments.
This report considers the experience of some three years of holding 'pre-appointment' hearings by select committees to examine the 'preferred candidate' for certain public appointments before that appointment is confirmed. Whilst the committee considers the experiment a success they do recommend a number of changes. They propose a three tier list: Posts in the first tier are those considered to be of sufficient constitutional significance as to require a process which is effectively a joint appointment by Government and the House of Commons. Posts in the second tier are those which the committee proposes should be subject to an enhanced an improved version of the current process, and which should be subject to an 'effective veto' by the House of Commons or its committees. For posts in the third tier, pre-appointment hearings should be at the discretion of committees.
The Early Years Single Funding Formula is intended to replace the different methods currently used to fund early years settings in the maintained sector and in the private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sector. Each local authority will in future use the same criteria for every setting in its area when allocating funds for education and care provided under the free entitlement for three and four year olds. But the Formula has resulted in winners and losers, and the greatest losers will be maintained nursery schools, which provide a quality of education and care which is very high and sets the standard for others to follow. Overall the difficulties encountered so far with the Single Funding Formula have arisen because of the way in which it has been implemented, rather than because of the concept. Local authorities were encouraged to offer settings a supplement to the basic hourly rate of funding to recognise high quality provision, but many have not done so. A quality supplement should be made mandatory. The Government was correct in deciding to defer full implementation until April 2011 and the year's delay must be used to restore stability and to rework funding formulae where necessary. Sir Jim Rose's proposals to encourage entry to primary school in the September following a child's fourth birthday will have far-reaching consequences for early years funding, but blur the distinction between early years and primary education. The Government should examine whether a unified funding system should be introduced for all children aged from 2 to 11 years old.
Radical change is needed if the Government's latest initiative to increase young people's participation in education, employment or training is to be more successful than past interventions. Whilst some progress has been made towards developing a strategy for 16-24 year olds, the Committee urges the Government to move more quickly to establish a seamless, overarching strategy for this age group. Young people make progress at different rates and many require tailored provision well beyond the age of 18. The Committee recommends extending current policies to a wider range of young people. In the Netherlands, the equivalent of the Jobseeker's Allowance is dependent on compulsory participation in education, employment or training. This may be the way forward for the UK. Many young people looking for work or training need better access to advice on claiming benefits, housing support, or health matters. Providing all these services in a 'one-stop shop' could well meet this need and prove more cost-effective. The Committee was deeply impressed by the work done by some local authorities to increase participation rates among 16-18 year olds. However, existing rewards and incentives offered by the Government are not sufficient to drive widespread improvement. The Government should consider strengthening the incentives offered to local authorities who are successful in raising rates of participation
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.