Education Committee

Oral evidence: Academies and free schools,
HC 258, Wednesday 22 October 2014

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 22 October 2014.

Written evidence from witnesses:

–       Department for Education (AFS 66)

–       Department for Education (AFS 112)

–       Department for Education (AFS 113)

–       Department for Education (AFS 114)

–       Department for Education (AFS 115)

–       Department for Education (AFS 122)

–       Department for Education (AFS 124)

Watch the meeting

Members present: Mr Graham Stuart (Chair), Neil Carmichael, Alex Cunningham, Bill Esterson, Pat Glass, Siobhain McDonagh, Ian Mearns, Caroline Nokes, Mr David Ward

Questions 1143-1356

Witness: Rt Hon Nicky Morgan MP, Secretary of State for Education

              Q1143 Chair: Good morning, Secretary of State. Welcome back.

              Nicky Morgan: Indeed.

              Chair: It is a pleasure to have you with us as the Education Committee brings to a close our long inquiry into academies and free schools. My opening question is: what is your vision of the future for the English school system?

              Nicky Morgan: My vision of the future is what we have now but to build on it: every child having access to a good local school; parents being happy and inspired by the education that their child is getting; the education system preparing our children for life in modern Britain; as we already have but building on it, a high-quality teaching work force, who are dedicated and hard-working and, I think, like everyone else in the education sector, wanting the best for all children, who are at the heart of the education sector.

              Q1144 Chair: That is quite a significant change from your predecessor, isn’t it?

              Nicky Morgan: Really? I don’t think so. Perhaps I put it in different language, but we are all on the same page.

              Q1145 Chair: I can’t imagine asking your predecessor that question and the word “academies” not being used during his answer.

              Nicky Morgan: Well, you have the Secretary of State sitting in front of you and, as I say, my vision is to ensure every child has access to a good local school.

              Q1146 Chair: Frank Green, the schools commissioner, said he envisaged an entirely academised system. Do you see every school in England being an academy by 2020?

              Nicky Morgan: I do not want to set any targets. We will come on to discuss this, but I think that the academies and free schools programme provides huge opportunities and achievements for our young people. I recognise that there are many schools that are still state-maintained that also do a fantastic job and are full of dedicated, hard-working teachers. At the end of the day, what I want is the best schools for our young people, opening minds and opening horizons, and every school to be “good” or “outstanding”.

              Q1147 Chair: But your own submission, albeit under your predecessor, was extremely focused on the improvements brought by academies and the combination of autonomy and accountability as the key drivers of improvement. It was quick to point out, and did so in some detail, the perceived failings of local authorities in not intervening quickly enough and not tackling mediocrity. Has the Department’s view been revised since then? Do you feel milder towards local authorities and their ability to effect improvement?

              Nicky Morgan: I think that across the country, as always, every local authority is different. Some react extremely quickly when schools are graded by Ofsted as requiring improvement or are put in the special measures category, and some take longer to make improvements and the necessary changes. Again, as I am sure we will discuss this later in this morning’s evidence, the Department will not hesitate to intervene, particularity in relation to academies and free schools where there are issues.

              You will be aware that last week the Conservative party announced a policy of intervening quickly in all schools that are graded as requiring improvement or special measures by Ofsted, but I think you are absolutely right to say that what we have seen over the past four years, with the process of academisation—the conversions and sponsored academies that were started by the last Government—is that when we have given autonomy to heads and teachers, the system has responded extremely well and we see standards rising in those schools.

              Q1148 Chair: But if that is true, why are you reluctant to say that you would like—perhaps not by 2020; you may not want to set a specific date—a fully academised system? That certainly seemed to be the direction of travel of the Department prior to your appointment.

              Nicky Morgan: I would like to see more schools becoming academies. Already, 59% of secondaries are academies; the number is smaller for primaries, because primaries are often smaller schools, so taking that step on their own can be harder—I have spoken to primary school heads in my constituency about that. I see the benefits of academisation, but, as I said last week, I am a carrot rather than a stick politician. I like people to be persuaded of the case for conversion, rather me sitting in Whitehall setting targets or compulsion.

              Q1149 Chair: And do you see the chief benefits being where academies, using their autonomy and subject to strict accountability, collaborate with each other?

              Nicky Morgan: I do, absolutely. We are seeing more and more of that happening. I go around the country listening to schools right the way across the system, although it is often led by academies and free schools in a particular area, where the heads are collaborating with other local schools. We are also seeing that having a good school or academy converter that is raising standards has a positive impact on other schools in the local area. That is absolutely to be applauded, and we want to see more of it.

              Q1150 Chair: And how will we see more of it? Most academies are still stand-alone schools. They differ in their behaviour, but many are islands on their own and are not part of a collaboration or family of local schools. Do you recognise that as a problem? If so, what can you do to encourage greater collaboration?

              Nicky Morgan: By talking about it and sharing best practice. There may be some schools that decide to federate, whether a hard or a soft federation. There may be some issues, particularly around the sharing of teachers or experience—for example, a school that wants to offer a particular subject but does not have enough students on its own can work with other schools to deliver that, and it is the same with extra-curricular activities. It is about making the case for this and ensuring that sort of practice is spread right across the country. That is where the Department for Education can help, as can the regional schools commissioners and the schools themselves talking about it. When I go out and about, I am conscious all the time that the heads and other teachers are working—they are in meetings with other head teachers and teachers and, of course, governors. We talked a bit about the role of governors last week and I think we should not overlook the importance of governors in our school system. There are governors who care passionately about their schools and will go and meet other governors, get good ideas and take them back to their schools.

              Q1151 Ian Mearns: Secretary of State, you have talked about your vision, but in particular by, say, 2020 to 2025, who will have responsibility for planning places and developing new schools in areas where there are shortages of places?

              Nicky Morgan: Well, I’m not going to speculate on policy 10 years in advance. It obviously depends on the number of schools that continue to convert. We have seen more than 3,000 schools wanting to convert and become academies during this Parliament and, as I said, there are more secondaries than there are primaries. I still think there is going to be a role for local authorities—I set out in my letter to the Committee, resulting from the evidence I gave last week about the role of local authorities in admissions, that there will still very much be a role for them. We have an evolutionary role in the growth of regional schools commissioners and the Department will continue to be very involved, particularly in approving, I expect, new school applications. We may come on to this in a moment, but obviously free schools are one of the answers—not the only answer—to the need for more places.

              Q1152 Ian Mearns: If you remember from the Finance Bill, I think we asked you to play Mystic Morgan. In your new role as Secretary of State for Education maybe you can be a bit more Mystic Morgan about the future and tell us, from your vision, who will oversee standards and monitor school performance? Who will be conducting the work force planning to ensure that we have enough specialist teachers, particularly for secondary schools, and enough teachers across the spectrum coming through teacher training?

              Nicky Morgan: Well, short of there being another upheaval for any reason, Ofsted is obviously very important in terms of monitoring performance, as is the Education Funding Agency in relation to schools that are outside local authority control. The Department works in terms of work force planning, the teacher supply model that was published recently, and then working with both higher education institutes that continue to deliver teacher training and the schools themselves. One of the important changes that we have seen in the last couple of years is schools getting more involved in teacher training themselves, whether as teaching school alliances or School Direct, or through fantastic schemes such as Teach First. I think we will see more of that.

              Q1153 Ian Mearns: But in terms of ensuring, from the national perspective, that there are enough specialist teachers in particular subjects or that there are enough primary teachers in a particular region, for example, who is going to oversee and pull the strings to ensure that that really happens rather than hoping, on a piecemeal basis, that it will occur organically?

              Nicky Morgan: I don’t think the piecemeal basis happens at the moment. The Department is very involved in working with teaching schools to providers and also working with the schools themselves. There is a wider issue too. For example, in this country we know that we need more of our students to be doing STEM subjects and to be doing them for longer. I said at an event last night that I understand we need—I think I said this last week—83,000 more engineers every year for the next 10 years in this country in order to support our industry and to ensure we have a successful economy. We can see that message already begin to filter through. I think there is also a role for schools in advising their students on the careers and subjects that they want to follow.

              Q1154 Ian Mearns: Evidence to this Committee suggests that the academies programme has the potential to create fantastic schools with innovative and liberated head teachers, but the loosening of the strings, as it were, and freeing up schools to a much greater extent has also created a loosening of the safety net. Is there a danger that the policy could create some excellent schools, but also allow more failing schools to slip under the radar?

              Nicky Morgan: I don’t think so. One of the things that I have been most impressed with since I joined the Department in July has been its involvement, particularly in relation to academies and free schools because they are outside local authority control. Where there are issues we are on to it very quickly, which is the particular responsibility of my ministerial colleague, Lord Nash. We act on intelligence from, as I said last week, a variety of different sources. The regional schools commissioners will also be important. They are mainly experienced former head teachers, but there are others who will act on intelligence that comes through from the local area, and we may come on to that. I have seen the letter that Peter Lauener wrote to the Committee after the evidence on conflicts of interest, which clearly showed all the different ways in which academies and those outside local authority control are held accountable.

              Q1155 Ian Mearns: Do you find any remaining conflict between the view of the schools commissioner for England about having a fully academised system in the future and that of the chief inspector, who said to this Committee that he did not think that academy status was appropriate for all primary schools?

              Nicky Morgan: My experience more widely in the education sector since July is that there are an awful lot of views. Some of them are in conflict, but people care passionately about the education system, so I will not comment or speculate on what the chief inspector or schools commissioner has said. To go back to the point you made in your first question, the opportunities provided by academies and free schools for outstanding education are huge, but, to go back to my original point, we still have a number of schools that are maintained, many of which are also offering an outstanding education.

              Q1156 Mr Ward: As someone who does not like carrots—

              Nicky Morgan: You can think of another vegetable if you like.

              Mr Ward: Or sticks.

              Nicky Morgan: Oh, right.

              Q1157 Mr Ward: Sausages may be a different matter. You mentioned needing 83,000 engineers. As Secretary of State, you are responsible for state education and the huge amount of funding that goes into the system. If the system does not produce 83,000 engineers, is that your fault?

              Nicky Morgan: I suspect that ultimately I and my successors will always be held accountable for many different issues, whether those are not producing enough certain types of qualified engineers or nurses or—heaven forbid—politicians. Questions will always be asked, but I think that there is a wider collaboration within the education sector. It is also about sharing labour market information, working with our LEPs, the chambers of commerce, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Government in general. One of the things that I am clear about—I have certainly said this in various speeches and I think I said it on my first day in the job—is that our education system plays a critical part in producing a highly skilled work force for this country. Everyone that I have come across in the education system takes that responsibility very seriously.

              Q1158 Mr Ward: Behind the question is the conflict that may exist between a state funded education system, for which I presume you have your vision of what you want it to produce, and an increasingly autonomous system where we are looking for success through initiatives, with creative approaches. How do you deliver national strategies through an increasingly autonomous system?

              Nicky Morgan: By collaboration. It is about communication, working together and being open about what we need, whether that is more engineers or more children staying on to do subjects for longer. STEM subjects, for example, are very important, but I want to be clear that I fully support the arts and creative subjects as well. It is about finding the right thing for each child.

              Actually, I think that we need to trust people within the education sector. As I say, everyone I meet is passionate—passionate head teachers, passionate teachers, passionate governors—and the officials in the Department are absolutely focused on this as well. It is about trusting people, which is certainly what I am in the business of politics to do. To go back to engineers, it is about making clear that there is a national need for them, and then saying, “How do we work together to deliver that?”

              Q1159 Mr Ward: Suppose that their passion is not the same as yours. Give me some examples of things that you believe are essential that you would like all schools to do.

              Nicky Morgan: We talked last week about a broad and balanced curriculum. I want our young people to have their horizons opened, not their minds closed, to the possibilities of life in modern Britain and around the world. I want them to be aware of the fact that when they leave full-time education, they will be competing for jobs with people from around the world. But I also want—I have made this a priority since I came into the Department—them to be well rounded, doing activities that provide character, resilience and grit. That is what the best schools are already doing, whether they are state-maintained or more autonomous academies.

              To go back to your example of engineering, when I talk to my local schools, and certainly my local college, they tell me clearly that we are now seeing more students, when choosing subjects, asking, “How will this help me get a job?” and, “Is this the kind of qualification that employers want to see?”

              Q1160 Mr Ward: But suppose they don’t?

              Nicky Morgan: Well, in any system we can always look at the negatives. We can always say, “Suppose this or that doesn’t work.” In any system you have to try things and there will always be things that do not work out, but the point is that we have more good and outstanding schools in 2014 than we did in 2010. I believe that the reforms made by the Government, particularly giving head teachers and teachers more autonomy, have driven that success.

              Q1161 Mr Ward: We could have an increasing number of good and outstanding schools that produce no engineers.

              Nicky Morgan: We could, but I think that it is unlikely.

              Q1162 Mr Ward: I am just looking to see whether your fingers are crossed. Hopefully you will see that I am trying to get at the difficulties of increasing autonomy. All national Governments of all parties will have their own initiatives and priorities—things that they want to do as part of the system. Are you comfortable with that?

              Nicky Morgan: Of course. I am comfortable that we have excellent communication between Departments, local authorities and head teachers. In terms of the subjects, we have already seen this summer more students taking subjects such as physics and maths. Those messages are getting through and students and their families are responding to that.

              Q1163 Mr Ward: I have one more question on the national curriculum. What would you do or what methods would you use, other than the results themselves, to ensure that the national curriculum, which is national, is fully incorporated into the work of the autonomous system?

              Nicky Morgan: The last Government allowed academies not to follow the national curriculum. They obviously have a requirement to teach a broad and balanced curriculum, and in practice many will follow, if not quite the national curriculum, then very close to it. I go to schools up and down the country and meet inspirational heads and utterly committed teachers, and they know that they are in the business of preparing our young people for life in modern Britain and teaching them the broad curriculum, as envisaged in the national curriculum. We have some exciting new elements to the national curriculum—I am thinking particularly about coding, which schools want to get into and are doing a great job of taking on.

              Q1164 Chair: Going back to what David was exploring, there is tension between autonomous schools and politicians such as yourself—perhaps in response to a national outrage or furore—wanting to enforce national education policy. That is no longer possible when funding agreements were written years ago and you cannot order the schools to do what you want. How do you have national education policy when so many schools do not have to do what you say?

              Nicky Morgan: I did not come into politics to order people around; I am in the business of taking people with me. When you see people in the education system or elsewhere who are inspired, whether you are talking about good health care, good schools, or good public services generally, that is what gets people going and what gets them up in the morning. We do have a national education policy, but we also believe very firmly in autonomy for heads right the way across the system.

              Q1165 Chair: So you do have a national education policy, but you are not in the business of telling people what to do.

              Nicky Morgan: Obviously, the Department has an education policy in terms of the way that schools are run. We obviously see more schools converting to become academies or new free schools being set up. By the way, free schools are phenomenally popular; we have seen more and more people wanting to set up free schools in response to both need and parental demand.

              Q1166 Chair: We will touch on free schools in due course, but I want to stay focused on the compatibility with a national education policy. Take British values, which came up: the desire was that British values should be taught and promoted everywhere, yet you have funding agreements written years ago that do not allow you to pull the lever and insist that all schools promote British values.

              Nicky Morgan: Some funding agreements have been rewritten, and we have seen some schools move on to that new funding agreement, but as we discussed last week, there are other mechanisms that we can use, partly though the inspection process, but also through things such as the independent school standards and other standards, and the issuing of national guidance. You can see that we will ask or, in the case of British values, require them to promote those values actively.

              Q1167 Neil Carmichael: Good morning.

              Nicky Morgan: Good morning.

              Neil Carmichael: On academy status, given the changing landscape that we have been hearing about in this inquiry so far, what are the principal reasons for a school to apply for academy status?

              Nicky Morgan: Obviously they are many and varied; it depends on the school. It is often because of the autonomy—the freedoms that are offered, the opportunities for collaboration with other schools. When I visit academies up and down the country, it is that sense of excitement about being able to really do what is right for the school, the pupils and the area. There is a huge sense of energy. I think that is why people are in the education system: to transfer that energy from their teaching to the pupils.

              Q1168 Neil Carmichael: The Prime Minister has been setting out ideas for the future of education, including a national teaching fellowship with the ambition to have two first-class teachers in every school by 2020. He is looking at the role of the regional commissioners and strengthening their power—things such as dismissing governing bodies, ensuring that head teachers perform and, if they don’t, dismissing them too. Is that a change or a challenge to what you have just said about the academy status?

              Nicky Morgan: I think it is about saying that every day a school runs into difficulties, particularly in special measures but also where its grades require improvement, that is a day lost for a child’s education. The reasons for running into difficulties can be many and various; I am sure that we have all come across examples in our careers or as Members of Parliament. Converting to academy status, which was the previous Government’s response when a school ran into difficulties, and this Government’s as well, although we encourage converters to academy status as well,  takes time. It takes around 13 months on average to negotiate the process.

              We have announced as a party that we would like to see the regional schools commissioners taking a more active role in those cases. They already get involved in failing academies. We can see that across the country there are certain actions, which have to be the right thing for the school, that result in faster improvements. It might be changing the governing body, or thinking about the way that teaching and lessons are delivered. The important point is that the regional schools commissioners are experienced—many are former head teachers and we have a former president of the ASCL. They are supported by elected head teacher boards, really have been at the front line and are there to offer support to all schools.

              Q1169 Neil Carmichael: For all that to happen through a regional commissioner, he or she is going to need a fairly clear idea about what is going on in the region—data, information, regular meetings with schools and so on. What kind of capacity are you going to build in to the regional commissioning teams?

              Nicky Morgan: They already have staff. They are supported by elected head teacher boards and they are head teachers in their local area. When I talk to my local heads—I would have thought the Committee would be in the same position—they are very well aware of what is going on in the local area among other schools. They are a useful source of information and will feed that in. The regional schools commissioners have staff. We would perhaps expect that staff to be expanded, but we are not trying to create another whole layer of local government. We want people who are fast-acting, get into schools and support them as they turn themselves around.

              Q1170 Neil Carmichael: One last question: what sort of relationship do you expect the regional commissioners to have with local authorities that have maintained schools?

              Nicky Morgan: The way the current proposal works is that if a local authority became aware of an academy or a free school that was in difficulty, they would pass that information to the regional schools commissioners, who take it from there. Under the future proposals, in the next Parliament, there may be times when the regional schools commissioners work with the local authority but it may be that they go in quicker and are able to react faster than, potentially, the school improvement service or the local authority. I would envisage they would work closely together.

              Q1171 Chair: But this burgeoning bureaucracy beneath the regional schools commissioners with their partially elected head teacher boards—are they partially elected?

              Nicky Morgan: It is two thirds.

              Q1172 Chair: Some are appointees. Is this not a renationalisation? The autonomy was given and now there are going to be these people overseeing and sniffing out failure everywhere—a growing bureaucracy. Aren’t we going to see the autonomy snuffed out by an unelected or partially elected body?

              Nicky Morgan: I think “renationalisation” must be one of your favourite words, Mr Stuart, because I am sure that you got it in last week when we were talking about extremism. The answer is: no, not at all. The point is that schools are not going to be taken over. The headships would continue; schools would continue as autonomous bodies, supported by the regional schools commissioners, who will be working in certain cases with the local authorities. They would be supported and, I hope, as things improve, they would be running themselves again as autonomous bodies. I am sure that at the heart of some of the questions the Committee will want to explore is that we have to take action where there are problems and failures. That is the right thing to do for the children, who are at the heart of the system.

Q1173 Chair: How will the national teaching fellowships be distributed? One of the problems we have at the moment is that local and national leaders in education are typically concentrated where they are needed least and we do not have them where they are needed most.

              Nicky Morgan: Yes, absolutely.

              Q1174 Chair: So how will this latest initiative address that and ensure that we have the support where it is most needed and that it does not collect where it is needed least?

              Nicky Morgan: I entirely agree with you. Actually, I have had a couple of conversations about this with interested bodies who would like to work on setting a scheme up—we are talking about potentially in the next Parliament, after the election. It would be absolutely about how we incentivise our teachers and these national teaching services to go to these areas. The Prime Minister was talking about coastal communities last week, but this is an issue in rural areas as well and right across the country.

              As you say, we absolutely do not want to see support concentrated in London and the south-east. As a midlands Member of Parliament I am very conscious of that and we want to ensure that the benefit of the two teachers who go into schools in difficulty is seen right across the country. Whether that is in terms of salary incentives or fixed terms they would spend in those schools, that will have to be explored to see what those in the profession feel would work best. We must listen to the schools and the teachers.

              Q1175 Chair: That’s pretty thin. We can all agree on what we would like to have happen—successive Governments have wanted to close the gap between rich and poor—but then we end up with the best teachers incentivised not to be where they are most needed. Warm words about what we would like are not the same as deciding on, or at least laying out, what we will do. Will there be salary incentives? What will be done around status?

              Nicky Morgan: I will not pre-empt the consultations. At the beginning of this session you wanted me to offer warm words and vision and now you are criticising me for doing so. I think that this is a matter for the manifesto and for consultation. I very much intend, as Secretary of State, to listen to what the profession tells me is going to work.

              Q1176 Chair: But you will be making sure that the focus is on getting them where they are needed most and that we do not inadvertently have incentives that drive them in the other direction, which happens all too often?

              Nicky Morgan: Absolutely. They have to be across the country in all schools that need that additional help.

              Q1177 Chair: Okay. “Renationalisation” is not my favourite word; it is just a description. When you bring back all the inspectors into the centre of Ofsted, that is renationalisation and if you start to take control of autonomous schools, that is also renationalisation. I just do not have a better word for it

              Nicky Morgan: Certainly on the latter, we are not going down that road.

              Alex Cunningham: We’re not talking about the railways, Chair.

              Nicky Morgan: I am not doing transport as well.

              Q1178 Pat Glass: Good morning, Secretary of State. I want to ask you about the academies and free schools programme and how successful that has been in raising attainment and narrowing the gap. But, before I do that, did you see the report this week in The Independent on the Government’s free schools and academies programme?

              Nicky Morgan: I didn’t see the report itself, but I may be aware of what you are about to ask me.

              Q1179 Pat Glass: They did quite a job, didn’t they? They said that: £50 million has been spent on free schools that are relatively new and judged by Ofsted to be inadequate or requiring improvement; £1.4 million was spent on free schools where the applications have been cancelled; one in three free schools now is inadequate or requiring improvement, as opposed to one in five local authority schools; and 79% of local authority schools are reaching the national average of level 4 at the end of key stage 2, as opposed to 70% of free schools. Given that information, do you believe that the Government’s academies and free schools programme is actually raising attainment or narrowing the gap?

              Nicky Morgan: I do believe it. That is a very interesting Labour party dossier. The shadow Secretary of State for Education needs to decide whether he supports free schools and academies or not, because this week he appears to have gone back to saying that he does quite like them—I will leave it to you to tackle him on that.

              There will always be money spent on schools that, for whatever reason, do not open. We support academies and I can go through some figures on what has been spent on them and free schools. Of course, when we approve free schools, there will be an initial process that they work through and money will be spent on that.

              The important point is that 71% of free schools have been judged by Ofsted as good or outstanding. These are schools that have been open for only two or three years, so they are being judged under the tougher Ofsted inspection: there is no longer a “satisfactory” grading; it is either “requires improvement” or “good” or “outstanding”. My information is that 71% of them are good or outstanding and for all schools that figure is 81%. For schools that have been open for only two or three years, that is a huge achievement.

              In terms of key stage 2 attainment, we have seen that the first wave of the primary sponsored academies is improving. Let me get this right: in those open in 2012, the proportion of pupils achieving level 4 or above in reading, writing and maths has increased by nine percentage points, which is double the rate of improvement across all schools, which is 4%. So yes, I do see academies and free schools driving up improvements across the system.

              Q1180 Pat Glass: Do you judge free schools that are achieving 10% less than their local authority counterparts to be successful?

              Nicky Morgan: I judge that 71% are graded “good” or “outstanding” and they have been open for two or three years. The point is that parents are making choices about where they send their children. Free schools are incredibly popular, and they are growing, in terms of the people who are applying for them and who want their children to attend them.

              Q1181 Siobhain McDonagh: There is a free school in my borough, Merton, with 12 pupils.

              Nicky Morgan: When did it open?

              Q1182 Siobhain McDonagh: It opened in September. This is an urban setting, not a rural setting, and it has 12 pupils. Is that sustainable?

              Nicky Morgan: I am happy to look at that and write to the Committee. The point it that it has only been open for a short time. We are only just at half term. Sometimes these schools start off with a small number of pupils, and they grow.

              Q1183 Pat Glass: Secretary of State, I could give you numerous examples. There is a secondary school in the constituency next to mine with 38 pupils. It costs, on average, something like £80,000 per pupil. Is that good value for money? Is that an example of parents supporting schools? Is that how the Government are judging success these days?

              Nicky Morgan: I would just suggest that there are some rural schools around the country that also have very small numbers of pupils. Is the Labour party suggesting that rural schools with small numbers of pupils should be shut?

              Pat Glass: This is right in the middle of Durham city.

              Nicky Morgan: It would appear that the Labour party now wants to shut small schools.

              Q1184 Ian Mearns: No. Secretary of State, part of the problem that is being highlighted here is that the zeal with which these schools were opened was, in many cases, indecent haste, because the need for the new establishment had not been established and the numbers had not been established. Therefore, an inordinate amount of public money per head has been put into these places, but the local need and local desire for them to be opened has not been proven.

              Nicky Morgan: I would say to you that 72% of free schools are opened in areas in which there is a need for more pupil places. Some are responding to parental demand, which is a good thing. The system should be responding to parental demand. At the end of the day, we are in this sector to do the best for our children, and that is what parents and families want—[Interruption.] Let me just finish this point. When we have opened all the schools that are in the pipeline, 90% will be in places where a basic need for more places has been identified. I would also make the point that free schools are not the only answer to basic need. The Government have spent £5 billion this Parliament on expanding other schools to respond to basic need, so we are responding to basic need in a number of different ways.

              Q1185 Ian Mearns: I just think, from the perspective of the ordinary parent on the Clapham omnibus, as it were, who is desperate for a new school place for their child next September, that the opportunity costs of some of these establishments per child cannot be justified. The per child cost looks completely and utterly ridiculous, in many respects.

              Nicky Morgan: The cost of opening these schools has come down hugely over the past few years. As I say, we can see that there is going to be a need for more places, and we must respond to parental demand. I think it is very important that we have these schools that have been set up. Many of them are very new, and they will be expanding. I already know of free schools that have started small and are growing rapidly because they are very popular.

              Q1186 Pat Glass: Moving on to evidence, the Committee, as part of this inquiry, has struggled to get evidence about whether academies and free schools are raising attainment and narrowing the gap. Increasingly, we are seeing evidence that that is not the case, but one of the things that the previous Secretary of State said to the Committee is that he would commission robust evidence. Where is that robust evidence? Apart from Ofsted, where is the Department-commissioned evidence that shows that this is good value for money, is raising attainment and is narrowing gaps?

              Nicky Morgan: I am very happy to take that away. Obviously, that was a commitment made by my predecessor, but it is something I am happy to discuss with him and with officials. As I say, we can see the results, and we have got more to come in. I make the point that free schools have been open for two or three years. Many of the children who are at the stage of doing key stage 2 have transferred from other schools and are now heading towards years 5 and 6. We can see that results are going up in our academies and free schools and that they are making progress faster than other maintained schools. Nevertheless, I am very happy to take away that issue. I look forward to receiving the Committee’s report as a result of all the inquiries that you have conducted.

              Q1187 Pat Glass: I want to go off the brief slightly and ask about something that the Chairman mentioned, namely national leaders in education. I travelled down on the train on Monday with a colleague—I think she is a friend as well—who I worked with over many years, some years ago. She is a head teacher who has successfully turned around three really failing schools. She is now the chief executive of a group of schools in Newcastle. One of the schools had failed a generation of pupils. It is very significant. It has been through every stage of metamorphosis required to become a successful school, and it is now doing incredibly well compared with where it was.

              Someone like my friend is not allowed to be a national leader in education. She told me that she has a couple of head teachers in her group who are probably perfectly good head teachers but have less than five years’ experience, have never worked in challenging schools, and have become head teachers in an outstanding school that has not then slipped. As national leaders, they are able to come in and give her advice. This particular person—there are many more of them—will be leaving the system in a few years’ time. What is the Department doing to capture that incredible experience? Why can’t people like her be national leaders in education, simply because the school she is in has not reached the grade, even though it has come so far?

              Nicky Morgan: You are absolutely right to say that we should look at the progress that children make. There is an emphasis on looking at final standards and where a school is. I would be interested to know the journey that the school has been on and where it is now. If you want to, I am very happy—

              Q1188 Pat Glass: She was the head of Excelsior academy in Newcastle. I think it is now part of a federation with several others.

              Nicky Morgan: I am very happy to take that away and look at it. You are absolutely right to say that we want people who have really achieved within the sector. We want to harness that experience, and there are roles. We discussed regional schools commissioners, and there are the head teachers boards and other roles in education. It saddens me to hear that. For some people, it might be time to leave—they might want to enter into retirement—but others can still offer a huge amount of expertise. We want to ensure that we harness that experience. I am very happy to take that example away.

              Q1189 Pat Glass: I think it is exactly what the Chairman was saying about making sure. There are some people who really relish a challenge, who want to work with young people who are massively disadvantaged, and who have huge credibility with their colleagues, yet the system is not picking them up.

              Nicky Morgan: Yes.

              Q1190 Chair: Before we move on from the evidence, I don’t know whether you saw the NFER analysis of academy performance that was published last Friday, but it said that “the data so far suggests academy status has made no difference to the progress made in converter academies, compared to similar non-academy schools over the same time period.” It also said that “pupil progress in sponsored academies compared to similar non-academies is not significantly different over time”. Have you seen that analysis? Do think that it is robust?

              Nicky Morgan: I haven’t seen the analysis; I will have to go away and look at it. As we all know, you can cut the numbers all sorts of different ways, but I would say that, interestingly, at key stage 2, for example, 83% of pupils at primary converters achieved level 4 in their reading, writing and maths, compared with 79% for local authority maintained schools and 68% for sponsored academies, which might tend to suggest that there may be reasons for how the numbers are being graded. By 2013, sponsored academies that had been open for three years had improved by 12%, compared with a 6% increase in maintained schools. We could recite all sorts of numbers and stats at each other for a long time. Nevertheless, I am happy to go away and look at that analysis and see whether or not we agree, and I am sure that we will respond.

              Chair: Thank you.

              Q1191 Caroline Nokes: Can I start by going back over some of the areas about which Pat was asking? Several times this morning you have mentioned the ability to intervene quickly where schools are failing; what about where they are not failing but are just failing to sustain progress? I could point to examples of converter academies that have had worse results year on year. What triggers do you look for when you want to see intervention to stop a slow, inexorable slide?

Nicky Morgan: That is a very good point. The Prime Minister talked about schools—I think he described them as coasting schools—that are doing fine but could be doing a lot better, and about wanting to ensure that the regional schools commissioners or others are pushing those schools to achieve even more. The regional schools commissioners’ responsibilities include, obviously, intervening in failing schools but also monitoring performance and prescribing intervention in underperforming academies and free schools, and challenging schools. In the Department—I think that local authorities do this as well—we keep a constant eye on how schools are performing and challenge them to continue to do better. That is important.

              Q1192 Caroline Nokes: Would you agree that it is a frustration for local authorities, which keep an eye on results, that in the case of academies they have next to no influence and are watching them produce worse results year on year?

              Nicky Morgan: They should be passing that information on. I hope now that the regional schools commissioners with their local intelligence will be picking that up anyway. Local authorities will pass their information to the regional schools commissioners or directly to the Department, at which point we will go and look. Of course, that is where Ofsted, the inspection framework, comes in, seeing what schools are doing to challenge and improve results.

              Q1193 Caroline Nokes: Moving on to leadership, we would all agree that the academy heads that we have met have largely been outstanding leaders. Do you have confidence that there are enough excellent head teachers coming through the system?

              Nicky Morgan: I certainly think there is potential but we have to watch all the time. I would like to see even more emphasis—we have the national college—on leadership skills for the future and on supporting good and outstanding teachers to become the next generation of leaders. As well as being Secretary of State for Education, I am Minister for Women and I would like to see more women in senior leadership positions. I have visited schools and seen some outstanding female head teachers, but I am not sure whether there are enough of them.

              Q1194 Caroline Nokes: I was just racking my brains. I think that the majority of head teachers in the secondary schools in my constituency are women. Would you agree that more skills are necessary for running an academy than for running a maintained school?

              Nicky Morgan: Yes.

              Q1195 Caroline Nokes: So what are the Government doing to ensure that head teachers are given the additional skills necessary?

              Nicky Morgan: As I say, it is through things such as the national college and CPD. I think there is more that we can do in terms of collaboration between schools in an area. If an academy is part of a chain, head teachers will get support with improving their skills from the best chains. You are absolutely right. I am not sure that the skills are necessarily different; perhaps they are broadly similar but obviously there are things like financial matters. All head teachers have to display a whole variety of skills. Many do that brilliantly but we need to think about what we need to bring the next generation on.

              Q1196 Caroline Nokes: I just want to turn quickly to freedoms. A DfE report in July found that academies were using few of the additional freedoms that they had been granted and anyway, in effect, they have been granted to all schools. Should Ofsted be looking for evidence for effective innovation, rather than a tick-box exercise on who is using which freedoms and how?

              Nicky Morgan: It is certainly an interesting idea, whether that is Ofsted or another mechanism. You are absolutely right that there are a lot of freedoms. When people get new powers, it sometimes takes time to exercise them and to appreciate the autonomy and freedom that converting to academy status brings. I suspect more of those who set up free schools are absolutely ready to use the freedoms they have. Going around the country, you see some innovative head teachers who are doing things very differently, and others who are taking time some time to get used to having those powers. It is because of those freedoms, which people can exploit really well, that academies and free schools, particularly academies, really work.

              Q1197 Neil Carmichael: We have heard a lot about effective collaboration. Do you think that academies that are not in a chain or any other collaborative process should be encouraged to collaborate?

              Nicky Morgan: I do. We have seen that 87% of academies support other schools, and 80% of free schools are collaborating as well. That means there is a small gap and there is always more that can be done.

              Q1198 Neil Carmichael: Because quite a lot of academies are not in any collaborative structure. Do you consider that to be not ideal?

              Nicky Morgan: I suppose it depends on whether it is a formal structure or whether there are informal mechanisms for heads and others in an area to get together to compare notes and share best practice. I think that does happen across the country. We are seeing, as the various case studies that we have seen in the Department show, examples such as this one from a head of a free school. He said “Since opening our school, the enhanced competition has resulted in standards in the local area rising. A head of another school has openly stated that the opening of our school made him re-evaluate his provision and raise attainment at GCSE by 25%.” Even if it is not formal collaboration, the impact of having another school in the area also doing well is driving up standards.

              Q1199 Neil Carmichael: That is the impact of competition rather than collaboration.

              Nicky Morgan: I think a bit of both is healthy, but collaboration offers tremendous opportunities for schools right across the country. Of course, it is not just secondary schools. With things such as the sport premium, which we have given schools, we see secondaries inviting in primary schools to use their facilities and share teaching. That, again, is an example of successful collaboration.

              Q1200 Neil Carmichael: So what sorts of incentive are there to encourage collaboration?

              Nicky Morgan: Well, I’ve just mentioned sport premium as one of the schemes, but there will be others in terms of specific funding. The incentives are, particularly in terms of secondaries working with primaries, about preparing children who are moving from a primary to a secondary school, preparing them for that experience and getting them used to being in a bigger school environment. Perhaps it goes back to the point that David raised about driving performance; because we have good people in our education system already, they want the performance to be better and they know that that is in their interest.

              Q1201 Neil Carmichael: Now, Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector, is very keen on collaboration and he thinks that all schools really should be collaborating. Do you agree with that in the sense that they should be forced to collaborate?

              Nicky Morgan: Again, it goes back to the fact that I am not really a forcing type of person. I would prefer to incentivise, whether through specific funding mechanisms or just by people seeing that collaboration absolutely works. The chief inspector obviously has many years of experience at the front line of education and he would know. He worked in a very difficult area and turned around a very difficult school and his judgment on collaboration is absolutely right. We want to avoid box-ticking exercises, but we want to see real change on the ground, which we are seeing through 87% of academies.

              Q1202 Neil Carmichael: Should collaboration be a factor in an Ofsted report and judgment?

              Nicky Morgan: The difficulty with adding more and more to Ofsted reports—although some things are clearly critical, which we discussed last week—is that it takes away from people standing back and appreciating what a school has to offer and from the freedoms for inspectors, many of whom are front-line education practitioners themselves. The Ofsted framework is one of the issues that is mentioned to me a lot by teachers and heads in terms of work load pressures, and I would prefer that they were encouraged and were then proud to show off their collaborations rather than thinking “I’ve got to do this because somebody is going to mark me if I don’t”.

              Q1203 Ian Mearns: There is a problem because many academies became such with the expectation that they would collaborate with other schools to raise standards. If they are not fulfilling that part of the bargain, which they entered into as part of academisation, is that not something that should legitimately be inspected by Ofsted?

              Nicky Morgan: I think it would probably come out as part of Ofsted looking at standards generally. As I said, 87% of academies are collaborating. We would like to see more, but 87% is an incredibly encouraging figure. I go back to my point, which is that the more that Ofsted has to inspect, the less it is able to stand back and think about the overall education that a school is offering. I do not want to add to the pressures of teachers, with them thinking “I have to do this,” I want them to do it because it is the right thing to do, which it is.

              Q1204 Neil Carmichael: Can I just go back to Ofsted on another tack?  One form of collaboration is, in fact, academy chains, so the inevitable question is: do you think Ofsted should be inspecting chains, which it wishes to do?

              Nicky Morgan: I think, Neil, you weren’t here last week, when we had a good discussion about that.  I understand that Sir Michael has written to the Committee since that session.  He has made his views clear, and I have made a decision that Ofsted is not formally going to inspect academy chains per se, but as we discussed in the Committee last week, I am satisfied that it can inspect the constituent parts.  In particular, it can inspect school governance and the support that the chains are offering to schools within them.  It can also do batch inspections.  After the Committee’s sitting last week I looked specifically at the reports that Ofsted had written on some of the academy chains.  If you look at the AET and E-ACT reports, you will see that they are looking at the support that a chain offers a school.  I think that that is the most critical thing—Ofsted looking at school outcomes.

              Q1205 Bill Esterson: In a statement you made in July, you told me that you would look at this matter and that you thought it needed to be considered.  What changed your mind?

              Nicky Morgan: It was going back and looking at letters like the ones produced for AET and E-ACT and saying, “Actually, Ofsted has these powers already, in effect, and it will report on the support and capabilities in an academy chain.”

              Q1206 Bill Esterson: Sir Michael Wilshaw says that he doesn’t have those powers.

              Nicky Morgan: I have seen the letter and I have had a chat with Sir Michael Wilshaw.  I think, looking at those letters, that he absolutely does, and that he is able to inspect and pass judgment on that in a way that then empowers parents and others to know what support an academy sponsor is offering to the schools in its chain.

              Q1207 Bill Esterson: So we should believe you and not Sir Michael?

              Nicky Morgan: That is a matter for the Committee.  I am the Secretary of State; I am making Government policy.

              Q1208 Bill Esterson: We have had some evidence from chains about very significant organisational structures at what are called head offices, spending hundreds of thousands of pounds. These are really quite significant organisations that look remarkably similar to local authorities. Local authorities are inspected by Ofsted.  Why not the same for a very similar structure?

              Nicky Morgan: Ofsted is about inspecting outcomes—school outcomes, school results and what is happening in schools.  That is the reason why it will then look at the governance and supports that chains offer.  Academy chains are not school improvement services.  That is a different matter from the support that the local authority gives.  As I say, we only have to look at the four reports that have been issued on academies and chains to see that.                Finances are a matter for the Education Funding Agency, which, as you have seen in the letter from Peter Lauener, will take those responsibilities very seriously.

              Q1209 Bill Esterson: So it is not part of the responsibility of those running academy chains to improve the schools?  That is what you just said.

              Nicky Morgan: No, I didn’t say that at all—

              Q1210 Bill Esterson: You said that school improvement isn’t part of their responsibility.

              Nicky Morgan: They are running the schools in a way that makes sure they have the best possible schools.  They do not offer a school improvement service of the sort that local authorities have. 

              Q1211 Chair: Some do have school improvement services exactly as local authorities have school improvement services.  They have people at the centre who go in and support the schools.

              Nicky Morgan: For their specific schools; not generally across the local authority area.

              Q1212 Bill Esterson: It is the equivalent.  Some chains have large numbers of schools, not dissimilar to the numbers that local authorities have.

              Nicky Morgan: That is exactly why Ofsted is able to produce reports such as the one it did, for example, on AET, looking at the support that that chain has given to the schools within it.

              Q1213 Bill Esterson: If they are fulfilling the same role and performing the same functions, why not have the same inspection regime?

              Nicky Morgan: Because Ofsted has those powers already.

              Q1214 Chair: You have had a week, Secretary of State.  I must admit that I was hoping that, if you were going to insist on keeping on digging on this issue, you would at least have a more nuanced view.  Sir Michael Wilshaw, the independent inspector, says that he does not have the power to inspect, and you are saying that you disagree with him.  You are disagreeing with the chief inspector on his perception of the powers he has.

              Nicky Morgan: I am.

              Chair: That is bizarre.  I have used so many words now—absurd, bizarre and so on—but I am struggling.  I have tried to think for myself over the past week what rationale could lie behind all this.  Is there a fear that a conformity would be imposed on these innovative new bodies that are supposed to have the freedom, with strict accountability, to innovate and run their trusts as they see fit?  That would be a rationale.  Perhaps Ofsted would come in and start to impose, or be perceived to be imposing, a uniformity that is not welcome, especially at this stage in the development of trusts.  I am trying to find some intellectual rationalisation for what otherwise looks like a policy with all the words I have used to describe it so far.  Can you please expand a little, because it doesn’t make sense to anybody on this Committee that we should continue not to allow the process to happen?

              Nicky Morgan: It is very, very simple.  We see from the reports that Ofsted has already produced on some of the academy sponsors that it has the powers to inspect the support that a sponsor is giving to the schools within its chain.  I am not in the business of producing more legislation to do something that the inspectorate can already do.

              Chair: They just need to be allowed to go into the chain.  The chief inspector tells us he does not have that power.  This Committee said we should have it.  That was the unanimous view of the Committee.  Other than the Department, and the person at the top of it, it is hard to discover anybody who understands the rationale. To disagree over whether you should do it or not is one thing. I cannot even begin to grasp the rationale. I am struggling to find one.

              Nicky Morgan: Well, I am not sure I can offer a more straightforward explanation than to say that they already have the powers.

              Q1215 Chair: They say they don’t. As a Conservative Member of Parliament, it looks to me that there is something to hide, and I am sure there is nothing to hide.

              Nicky Morgan: I am not in the business of passing legislation to confer powers that already exist.

              Q1216 Bill Esterson: David Carter, the regional schools commissioner for the south west, said that the failure to inspect chains gives a one dimensional view of the chain. He is saying that chains are not being inspected.

              Nicky Morgan: I am very happy to discuss it with Sir David Carter, but I am clear from looking at these four Ofsted reports in front of me that it has the powers to ask to look at the support that the sponsors are offering to the schools in their chain.

              Q1217 Alex Cunningham: I wonder if the Secretary of State has nuanced a little there because she said something quite different: they can inspect the services provided to the schools. What we are into is them being able to inspect the top management level and how it operates within a chain. You are saying, Secretary of State, that Michael Wilshaw has the powers to do that, so next week, if he chooses, he can walk into the head office of AET and start to inspect it. Is that what you are telling me?

              Nicky Morgan: Well, he can certainly ask to speak to everybody in AET. Whether they do it in the AET boardroom or in the school in my constituency that AET runs is a matter for the inspectorate and AET to agree.

              Q1218 Alex Cunningham: So you are telling me categorically that if Michael Wilshaw wants to, he can walk into the head offices of one of the academy chains on Monday and say, “I want to look at all your books. I want to inspect exactly what you are doing. I want to look at the salary structures. I want to look at how you procure services.”

              Nicky Morgan: No, I am saying it is up to him to discuss—

              Q1219 Alex Cunningham: So he cannot; it is not like that. Can he do it or can’t he?

              Nicky Morgan: He is able to look at the support. Let us take a step back. What do academy sponsors or chains do? They bring schools together. They support heads to build on further performance—

              Q1220 Alex Cunningham: They spend a lot of public money. They have huge salaries

              Nicky Morgan: And they produce audited accounts, which are accountable to the Education Funding Agency. We will go on to talk about overall academy accountability, which I think is much stronger than it is in the maintained system. So AET is able to produce accounts. We can see how it has spent the money. What the inspectorate is looking at is school performance and outcomes. That is done by looking at the support that AET and others offer. I don’t want to pick on AET, but that is what—

              Q1221 Alex Cunningham: I am going to pick on them later, Secretary of State. What I want to know is whether, on Monday, Michael Wilshaw, if he chooses, can walk into the head office of an academy chain and say, “I want to see your books. I want to interview your staff.”

              Nicky Morgan: He is able to ask to interview any members of staff of the academy sponsor in the head office. Because the books are audited and open to public scrutiny, Sir Michael Wilshaw is looking at the outcomes of schools and their performance. He is able then to ask questions.

              Q1222 Alex Cunningham: So the answer to my question is yes, he does have the power to go in, inspect and question whoever he likes, and look at whatever he likes within an academy chain head office.

              Nicky Morgan: He certainly has done that in terms of preparing reports.

              Q1223 Alex Cunningham: It is a straightforward question. Has he the power—yes or no?

              Nicky Morgan: I think he does have the power to look at the support and the governance arrangements of the chain or the sponsor of a chain.

              Alex Cunningham: I think we have made a major step forward this morning. I hope that Michael Wilshaw will be going in on Monday to inspect some of the academy chains.

              Q1224 Chair: Secretary of State, would it be possible for you to write to Sir Michael Wilshaw and copy us in on that letter on this topic? At least we will have then in black and white exactly what the constraints are, if there are any, and what the freedoms are.

              Nicky Morgan: I am happy to do that. I had a long chat with Michael Wilshaw last week. If the Committee wants to put it on paper, that is fine.

              Q1225 Chair: Super. Thank you very much.

              Can I just take you back to the collaboration point that Neil touched on and the 87% collaborating? When we previously looked into this, we found that the Department evaluated this by asking those academies that had a formal obligation signed in their funding agreement, so it was not a matter of choice to collaborate—they were formally obliged to collaborate and support other schools. We questioned whether asking them was the right way round, a bit like asking the Secretary of State, rather than the chief inspector, whether he has the powers he wants. You are better off asking the person at the other end.

              Nicky Morgan: You’ve done both.

              Chair: I cannot remember whether it was your predecessor or another Minister who agreed to check that you were looking at it from the right end of the telescope. It seemed to us that the schools that were supposed to be receiving this support—whether it was a genuine, true collaboration or not—were the people we thought it would be better to conduct a survey of to get an idea of how well converter academies were fulfilling that strict obligation. Has any such work gone on?

              Nicky Morgan: I am not aware. I would need to ask a question in the Department about that.

              Chair: Super. If you could come back to us on that, we would be very grateful.

              Q1226 Pat Glass: Can I ask about brokering arrangements? We have read evidence from a range of people, and witnesses have told the Committee, that some local authorities have pulled together effective partnerships and that, in other parts of the country, academy chains are able to do this. We have also heard that local authorities now lack the capacity to broker collaboration between schools. So who is best placed? Whose job actually is it to broker collaboration between schools?

              Nicky Morgan: We do work with local authorities that feel they have the capacity, but also the regional schools commissioners, of course, will now get involved in terms of recommending that a sponsor should be found and that they should convert to become an academy. We also have 20 brokers and 52 education advisers that we work with, across the area, so I think that is probably the way that it works at the moment. The regional schools commissioners will have a role in this.

              Q1227 Pat Glass: Okay. Can I ask you about the process of brokering, or re-brokering? For example, Hartsbrook free school in north London was judged to be inadequate, was closed and then was re-brokered—whatever that means—and reopened as Brook House, with the same head teacher, in the same location, with the same pupils. Under the rules, that school now will not be re-inspected, so a failing school, with exactly the same head in place, will now not be re-inspected for four years under Ofsted. Is that good enough?

              Nicky Morgan: I think we will send in education advisers sooner than that, so it may not have a formal inspection, but education advisers will go in, I think, in the first and fourth terms.

              Q1228 Pat Glass: Who will send in those education inspectors.

              Nicky Morgan: DfE.

              Q1229 Pat Glass: Right. So if somebody in the DfE remembers to send in education inspectors, which—

              Nicky Morgan: We have some very good officials. I think, to be fair to them—

              Q1230 Pat Glass: But there is nothing formal. If the person left, and we know what happens, and it falls between two stools, there is nothing formal and that school—with the same head teacher, the same problems, the same pupils and the same location; just with a different name—could wait four years before it is judged to be inadequate again.

              Nicky Morgan: Well, it could wait four years for a formal Ofsted inspection, but we would be keeping a much closer eye on it, through the education advisers. Of course, if there were concerns, we could ask Ofsted to inspect sooner.

              Q1231 Pat Glass: Okay. Can I ask you about issues that were raised earlier about the DfE survey that had 720 responses, 87% of whom said that they were supporting other schools. Presumably 100% of those schools have funding agreements saying they will support other schools.

              Nicky Morgan: I think it will depend on when they converted—when they became academies—because there obviously was an iteration in the funding agreement that we inherited as a Government, and there have been four further iterations. The funding agreement has been updated during this Parliament.

              Q1232 Pat Glass: Okay.

              Is it simply sufficient to ask what difference is it making? What monitoring is the DfE putting in? You are asking these schools and, by their own admission, 13% are not even bothering to do anything. Who is monitoring that it is happening and actually making a difference?

              Nicky Morgan: The Department obviously will keep a close eye on what is going on in all schools. I think it is the wrong way round to look at IT—with regard to the 13%, it may be that they feel that they are not doing formal collaboration as such, but actually, effectively, they are working with local schools in an area. Again, it goes back to autonomy.

              We have some fantastic heads and teachers across the country who will be working with other local schools, whether as part of some sort of formal arrangements or whether it is more informal. The DfE will ask, obviously, in terms of any concerns about the funding agreement—that is for the Education Funding Agency. The regional schools commissioners will obviously act on intelligence. Although Ofsted may not have it as a formal thing to look at, again, I suspect it is something that inspectors will be aware of.

              Q1233 Pat Glass: Okay. Can I come back to the issue of public money?  Is anyone checking—the funding agency or the Department for Education—exactly how many academies have funding arrangements that require them to do this work, but are not doing it? Is that not obtaining public money by deception and therefore a criminal offence?

              Nicky Morgan: Peter Lauener has written to the Committee setting out very clearly how academies are held accountable for public money. You are absolutely right; it is hard-working taxpayers’ money that we are spending on education. Like all other public services, we take that responsibility very seriously, as does the Education Funding Agency. The Chairman referred to some work to which my predecessor had agreed, as part of the Department’s work, so I am happy to look at that and update the Committee. I do not want to be partisan, but it is a great shame to look at all the negatives when 87% of academies are collaborating—many formally and some informally. They are doing it very well and making a difference to education in this country.

              Q1234 Pat Glass: I agree, but this Committee’s role is about scrutiny and challenge.

              Nicky Morgan: Of course.

              Q1235 Pat Glass: We are here to find out the issues, address them and bring them to your attention. When we, as a Committee, visited the Department for Education—I accept that you are very new there—we found that, unlike the days when I was working there, practically everyone in the building was working in the academies and free schools division. Is there someone in that huge division whose job it is to check that the funding arrangements these schools have entered into are being complied with and that they are not taking public money without then delivering?

              Nicky Morgan: I am absolutely certain that that is the case. It will be more than one person, but I am very happy to ask that question internally. I go back to Peter Lauener’s letter—the role of the Education Funding Agency is to investigate all complaints, whether they are raised externally or internally by the EFA, about following a funding agreement. We have tightened up those funding agreements in the last four years.

              Q1236 Ian Mearns: Pat drifted into—or rather went purposefully into—the area of public money. Having an overview of this system, do you think there are people out there in individual schools or academy chains who are using public money to pay themselves too much?

              Nicky Morgan: You are raising the issue, I suspect, of salaries. We saw that covered in the press last weekend. What academies and non-maintained schools pay is a matter for governing bodies and for the trustees. Many head teachers have taken on additional responsibilities and are working for a number of different schools, and so are making a huge difference to the education of our children.

              Q1237 Ian Mearns: I have seen figures for the number of people who pay themselves more than you are paid.

              Nicky Morgan: Thank you; I am sure that applies in many different walks of life. The Senior Salaries Review Body has recently looked at leaders’ pay. I agree with you: taxpayers work very hard to pay their taxes, and I want to see as much of that money spent on front-line education as possible. There are some very big numbers out there. Perhaps, as part of this evidence, I could say to those who are responsible for spending that money that they need to think very carefully about the salaries being approved and the accountability for those.

              Q1238 Chair: Picking up on your point about being negative, I add that our job as a Committee is to scrutinise the work of your Department.

              Nicky Morgan: I appreciate that.

              Q1239 Chair: It seems that having autonomy is generally a good thing. Accountability is necessary to drive that and, increasingly—regardless of your views on academies or the original policy—collaboration is a really important thing. As a Committee, we have focused on ensuring that we have the incentives in place that allow those three things to work together for the good of children. It is our job to scrutinise this. If there is a risk that schools are ticking a box and pretending to collaborate without really collaborating, we would want to keep working on that until we had the collaborative system that is your vision.

              Nicky Morgan: We would very much want to focus on that as a Department and in the education system as well.

              Chair: Thank you.

              Q1240 Siobhain McDonagh: Effective chains have high value added, but many chains’ performance is below that of maintained schools. What other characteristics do effective chains have and how can all chains be incentivised to emulate that success?

              Nicky Morgan: It is very interesting. We want this school-led, self-improving system of autonomy, but I am not entirely sure that I am the best person from Whitehall to sit here and say, “This is how the best schools are run.” There are things that I see in my local schools and when visiting schools across the country that work well in areas such as leadership, which we talked about earlier. That is about supporting school leaders and bringing on new school leaders. There may be support for new curriculum initiatives and extra-curricular activities. Part of that collaboration is also about sharing best practice across the system.

              You are right to say that there are some organisations where things have not worked out so well. It sounds as though we are going to come back to talk about some specific chains or sponsors where that has happened. However, there are also some that are incredibly successful, such as ARK, Harris and others.

              Q1241 Siobhain McDonagh: That is my question. I acknowledge that there are good chains and less good ones, but I am concerned about how sponsors are appointed. Both as a constituency MP and a member of this Committee, I am concerned that it is not always in the best interests of the children, particularly when schools have failed and sponsors are going to be appointed. It is not the benefit of the children that comes first, but the desire of the Department to get more sponsors into the field.

              I have personal experience of an excellent sponsor competing against a very poor one to take over a failing primary school, and the poor sponsor won. We know that there are certain factors in effectiveness that I believe the Department should want to impose. We know that if you have an academy in Manchester and one in Oxford and you want one in London, that is a sign that you may not succeed. A sponsor who has most of their schools in and around a particular geographic location is more likely to be successful. Do you not think that the Department should take those factors into account?

              Nicky Morgan: I think we do. I would like to push back strongly on the implication that we do not have a robust process for appointing sponsors. We take enormous care in ensuring that the right people are approved as sponsors. We are prepared, as you have seen—

              Q1242 Siobhain McDonagh: Perhaps following this meeting I can tell you the school I was talking about.

              Nicky Morgan: Please do. We rely a lot on MPs and intelligence coming forward from local areas where there is a concern about somebody who may want to take over a school or become a sponsor. We also pause sponsorships firmly. We have said to some sponsor bodies that they are growing too fast and not offering sufficient support to schools, and, if necessary, we will take schools away and re-broker.

              Q1243 Siobhain McDonagh: But do you not think that when you are approving sponsors, you should consider the geographic location of their other schools and whether they can manage?

              Nicky Morgan: I certainly think that is a factor, but I would not want to see an automatic assumption that if you are not looking after schools in only a small area, you should be automatically turned down. There are enormous advantages, as we heard earlier, in looking at how education operates across the country. There are some very good examples that can be translated from one part to another, including members of staff who have performed exceptionally in one place. We are going to take that exceptional head teacher and ask her to go and be head teacher somewhere else because she has done such an amazing job.

              Q1244 Siobhain McDonagh: We heard from the Prospect chain that part of its dilemma was that in order to assist the Department, it chased schools right across the country and could not get a mass in any one place to help it to be effective. I have a slight dilemma in that I do not want to mention the school and the sponsor because they are in a difficult situation and want to do their best. I am concerned that the drivers for obtaining sponsors are not always what is best for the kids.

              Nicky Morgan: I am happy to discuss the specifics with you, but I reiterate what I said at the beginning: for my job—for the DfE, Ministers and everybody else—what is best for the children is at the heart of everything we do.

              Bill Esterson: I don’t think anybody is questioning that, Secretary of State.

              Nicky Morgan: It sounded a bit like it.

              Siobhain McDonagh: I am not questioning the Secretary of State; I am saying there are different drivers.

              Q1245 Bill Esterson: I have discussed a particular case with you, which I am not going to raise now, but when looking for a change of sponsor—something that is going on at the moment—or a new one, how strong is the drive to find a sponsor? Is there a case for saying that although we like to do things quickly, sometimes we need to delay until we find the right sponsor? How much consideration is given to that? I have concerns about this with one or two examples I have seen.

              Nicky Morgan: A lot of consideration is given to that. It is important to get the right sponsor, because otherwise all you are doing is moving from one unhappy relationship to another unhappy relationship. That does not benefit anybody. That is partly at the heart of what we have announced recently, as a party, for our policy. Simply to do the conversion can take time and then obviously you have time to find the sponsor. Every day that you delay, that is a day that a child’s education is lost or affected, so getting schools to turn themselves around quickly through other mechanisms is important. You are absolutely right, it is important to find the right sponsor.

              Q1246 Bill Esterson: If you get the wrong sponsor, you just make it worse.

              Nicky Morgan: Well, I have just said to you, you move from one unhappy relationship to another unhappy relationship.

              Q1247 Bill Esterson: So is there an alternative if you cannot find the right sponsor? There must come a point where it gets more and more difficult to find sponsors.

              Nicky Morgan: I don’t know. I think we have more and more people coming forward who want to be sponsors. What is interesting is that there are some schools that have been either stand-alone academies that now want to enter into sponsorship arrangements. They have a head teacher who feels capable and a governing body who is capable of taking that on. We have the figures: as of 1 October, we have 642 approved sponsors and over 2,200 academies and free schools under their support. The majority of our sponsors have between two and six academies. Sponsor growth and performance are regularly managed and we will pause their growth.

              Q1248 Bill Esterson: How do you make sure that a new sponsor is up to the job, assuming that they are going to be schools? How do you make sure that they have that expertise?

              Nicky Morgan: Obviously, potentially there is the track record if they are an existing sponsor of a school. We talked last week about how there would be due diligence checks carried out as well—talking to people, talking to schools. That is what my ministerial colleague, Lord Nash, spends a huge amount of his time doing, out there working with others to gather intelligence as to what is working and what is not working.

              Q1249 Bill Esterson: I can see how that follows for existing sponsors taking on new schools. What about new sponsors?

              Nicky Morgan: Well, I think there is a robust, due diligence process and a real understanding of why people want to be sponsors, what they offer, what they are going to offer in terms of education, what their finances are like. So it is not something that people just pop up and say, “I’d like to be a sponsor”, and it is sort of “Sign here.” They are very robust and sometimes lengthy processes to make sure that people are in it for the right reason and offer real support should they be approved.

              Q1250 Chair: Is there any preference to any particular type? As you say, there has been a big increase in the number of schools acting as sponsors, but is there a preference for—I don’t know—a private business person rather than another school?

              Nicky Morgan: I don’t think so. I think the question is about experience, about what somebody brings to the table. It is about effectiveness at the end of the day. It goes back to the point that children are at the heart of the system and it is about what is going to work best for them.

              Q1251 Chair: Okay. Just to go back, I think 657 people applied to the Department to be sponsors, according to the evidence you submitted to us, of whom 18 have been rejected. Some people looking at the those numbers might think that the rigour with which they were assessed was not sufficient, if only 18 were rejected out of 657.

              Nicky Morgan: Let me take those figures away. I haven’t got 657, but I have 642 have been approved. I am happy to take that away and to think. I am not going to go into details of why people are rejected, but I do know that there is a very rigorous process.

              Chair: Okay, thank you.

              Q1252 Mr Ward: You mentioned track record as being an important consideration. Has Alan Lewis been barred as a future sponsor based on his track record at Kings?

              Nicky Morgan: I can’t offer any specifics on any of the cases. I am happy to go away, but obviously the Kings situation, as we discussed briefly last week, is in the hands of the police. That clearly would give us cause for concern.

              Q1253 Mr Ward: Alan Lewis is not at the moment under police investigation.

              Nicky Morgan: No, no, but the school is.

              Q1254 Mr Ward: But that is the sort of thing—the track record in terms of—

              Nicky Morgan: Absolutely, it is all sorts of things. It is the track record in all sorts of different ways and not, obviously, just in terms of education, but other things as well.

              Q1255 Mr Ward: In terms of the evolving rigour of the assessment of sponsors, is what happened at Kings something that could not happen now?

              Nicky Morgan: One would sincerely hope not.

              Q1256 Mr Ward: It was a whistleblower, at the end of the day, not the EFA.

              Nicky Morgan: No, as I say, I think Peter Lauener has written to the Committee setting out all the processes. I think the processes have got more robust over the last couple of years, but there will always be an element of relying on those within the system to share intelligence.

              Q1257 Mr Ward: There seems was due to their rapid expansion. We also heard that some of that rapid expansion was after pressure from the DfE. Are you confident that all the existing non-capped chains are up to the job and competent to expand further if they so wish?

              Nicky Morgan: We know that there are issues. There are 18 sponsors who have been paused at this time. We constantly keep an eye on all others and, obviously, Ofsted will do so too in terms of education outcome and performance. We have a very strong set of responses. However, there are always going to be issues of all sorts. At the end of the day, we are dealing with people.

              Q1258 Mr Ward: But in terms of the look at the change in their competence and their track records, are the non-capped ones at the moment, in your view, all fit for purpose and ready to expand if they so wish?

              Nicky Morgan: Where we have evidence, we have paused them or capped them, as you call it. That tends to suggest that we do not have evidence on the others of anything that would cause us concern.

              Q1259 Mr Ward: For those children in schools where we have deemed the sponsors to be unfit to expand, or paused, what special help has been given to the children in those schools—possibly, failing schools—within chains that we have deemed to be unfit to expand?

              Nicky Morgan: If Ofsted has done an inspection it will have identified issues. I can speak from experience, as there is a school in that position in my constituency. There is a school being offered support by the regional schools commissioner. An interim head has come in and there has been a lot of examination of the teaching in that school. Just because the sponsor has been paused in terms of its growth, there is a huge amount of support going on, certainly in that school and in others. I go back to the point that every day that these issues are not sorted out is a day lost from a child’s education, and that is what we are all here to see improve.

              Q1260 Ian Mearns: Secretary of State, Dan Moynihan of Harris academy chain told the Committee that there should be an appeals process for individual academies that want to take a unilateral decision to leave the chain. Will you introduce an appeals process to allow them to do so?

              Nicky Morgan: With everything in education, I am very happy to listen to suggestions from everybody in the system. There is concern about whether you would undermine what could be a very successful chain. If, for whatever reason, a relationship had broken down or was not working to the satisfaction of one of the parties, that might undermine other schools in the chain that were reliant on it. We talked about collaboration earlier on. It might be that other schools in the chain were relying on that school for support and collaboration and that work might be undermined. On the other hand, we do not want to see unhappy relationships continue; that does not benefit anybody. I am not going to give any commitments, but the system is continually evolving and kept under review.

              Q1261 Ian Mearns: It is a bit of an uneven situation at the moment, because an academy chain can unilaterally decide to flush out a school from their chain if they no longer wish it to be there. There is an inherent unfairness within that part of the relationship.

              Nicky Morgan: I am well aware of the arguments. This is something I have discussed with Lord Nash as well. An unhappy relationship does not benefit anybody.

              Q1262 Ian Mearns: A number of chains have run into problems during the course of our inquiry—for instance, E-ACT and Prospects academies. Have you considered introducing a United States-style accountability, whereby the schools charter is terminated and the school closed down if the proportion of students reaching pre-set attainment levels falls below a certain figure, and if not, why not?

              Nicky Morgan: Closing a school down is a final and extreme step to take.

              Q1263 Ian Mearns: But as we have heard, with a free school, for instance, a school has been closed down and another one re-established that looked very similar.

              Nicky Morgan: That was one very specific circumstance and there were particular reasons for it.

              Ian Mearns: It shows that it can be done.

              Nicky Morgan: It can be done.

              Q1264 Ian Mearns: It can be done without leaving the children high and dry.

              Nicky Morgan: I go back to the fact that politicians cannot have it all ways. We cannot, on the one hand, criticise a school for being shut down and then re-opened and, on the other hand, say that that is a very good idea. We are all in the business of making sure that children are at the heart of the system. If that needs to be done, the point is that every school is slightly different. It needs to be the right solution for that school, whether or not it can be turned around without actually being formally shut down and given a new name—just because you have changed the name, that does not necessarily change the school. There may be other things that can be brokered. That is where the involvement of the regional schools commissioner, in particular, comes in.

              Q1265 Alex Cunningham: Secretary of State, can you clarify your policy on whether state schools can or cannot be run for profit?

              Nicky Morgan: I don’t want to see schools run for profit.

              Q1266 Alex Cunningham: You do not want to see schools run for profit so your policy is that schools will not be run for profit.

              Nicky Morgan: I couldn’t be any clearer. I do not think that schools should be run for profit.

              Q1267 Alex Cunningham: That is helpful. I said I would pick on AET and I am going to now. I have been in correspondence with Ministers and asked questions of Ministers and other witnesses about the proposed AET joint venture LLP. I understand that is currently with the Education Funding Agency and yourself to make a decision. Can you tell me when a decision is likely to be made? Do you think that this joint venture proposal sits with your comment that there is absolutely no plan on the Government’s part to move to a profit model for service delivery?

              Nicky Morgan: I can’t tell you; the specifics have not crossed my desk yet. I am happy to go away and look at it. We have been very clear—I am very clear—that the not-for-profit element is very important in our school system.

              Q1268 Alex Cunningham: Thank you. The word “autonomy” is bandied around this room week in, week out. Do you agree with some people who say that if there is a large scale contract across dozens of schools that dictates how you get your services, the staff you receive and everything else, that autonomy has gone?

              Nicky Morgan: Not necessarily. If people have chosen to join a chain and voluntarily entered into that agreement it can offer advantages. We see some very successful sponsors of academy chains.

              Q1269 Alex Cunningham: A head teacher does not necessarily have the right to say, “I want to hire that person,” or interview a person as a teaching assistant, for example. They would not be able to interview teaching assistants. The contract partner would say, “If you need a teaching assistant you can have Jimmy.”

              Nicky Morgan: It depends very much on the contracts entered into. In my experience in my constituency where a school was part of a chain it was able to make its own staffing decisions. What was on offer from the sponsor were things such as leadership and financial support.

              Q1270 Alex Cunningham: So you will be looking very carefully at the AET proposal, because that takes away many of those powers from the head teacher.

              Nicky Morgan: We look at all proposals carefully.

              Q1271 Alex Cunningham: So you don’t think that a head teacher should have to face a situation where they can’t make the decisions on the staff that they hire.

              Nicky Morgan: At the end of the day, we want heads, and we have excellent heads across the country. who are running their schools. I think staffing is a critical decision for a head teacher to take.

              Q1272 Alex Cunningham: May I quote some things about AET by Ofsted? Matthew Coffey, HMI chief operating officer, wrote a letter in August to Ian Comfort, the CEO of AET. He said, “AET academies were not improving quickly enough, with too many continuing to be less than good; the progress of pupils, as measured by value-added scores, was below the national level…disadvantaged pupils in the Trust were well behind their more affluent peers and less likely to achieve 5 good GCSEs…with eleven academies judged inadequate.”

              Don’t you think this chain should be concentrating on teaching, learning and driving up standards instead of getting into complicated contracts with profit-making partners?

              Nicky Morgan: The Ofsted letter could not be clearer. I will not rehash the arguments from earlier. They were able to make some critical but important judgments. That is exactly what parents across the country and students need—for schools to focus on educational performance and outcomes. Organisations, whether AET or others, should be in the business of supporting that. We have a number of sponsors who do that extremely well.

              Q1273 Alex Cunningham: Don’t you think that with a poor record like this they should be doing something else rather than looking at contracts? It is poor record. What can be done about them?

              Nicky Morgan: It is a poor record. That is why we have paused them and we are working with them. Some schools will be leaving the chain and moving elsewhere. We will continue to keep the pressure up and focus on their behaviours.

              Q1274 Alex Cunningham: There are two or three related things. The ONS classification guide lists academy trusts as being entirely within the public sector. Is a corporate entity over which an academy trust has control also classified as within the public sector?

              Nicky Morgan: I will have to write to the Committee on that.

              Q1275 Alex Cunningham: I would appreciate that. Similarly, is a limited liability partnership or other corporate structure in which an academy has a majority stake or a controlling influence subject to public procurement regulations? I am happy to have a letter on that.

              Nicky Morgan: Yes, I will have to write to you on that.

              Q1276 Alex Cunningham: Finally, is borrowing by a limited liability partnership or other corporate structure in which an academy has a majority stake or a controlling influence classified as public expenditure?

              Nicky Morgan: Let me confirm, but I suspect not.

              Q1277 Neil Carmichael: May we go into more detail about the regional commissioners? They are an important and evolving change, because you are expanding their roles. As we pointed out, the Prime Minister sees them as a more powerful structure to approve schools. We were recently looking at the boards. There seems to be concern about the number of primary school head teachers on those boards. Do you recognise that and, if it is a genuine concern, will you aim to put that right?

              Nicky Morgan: Do you mean that there are too many or too few?

              Q1278 Neil Carmichael: Too few.

              Nicky Morgan: We would certainly like to see more primary school heads. This is the first round of elections; it is a new position and entity. Early years and primary are absolutely critical, and I would like to see them having more influence. If we do not get that right, the rest of the system struggles.

              Q1279 Neil Carmichael: Have you done some sort of audit of the boards that have been elected so far to ensure that they have the right reach in terms of representation and, critically, skills?

              Nicky Morgan: They had to be heads of outstanding schools in order to stand for election. I was not in the Department at the time of the elections but that is my understanding; I am ready to be corrected on that. This is the first time we have had the elections and I would hope that other heads within the system, many of whom might well come from the primary sector, will see that and want to be involved in future elections.

              Q1280 Neil Carmichael: So you are happy with the layout of the boards at the moment?

              Nicky Morgan: Yes. It is a new system, so we need to give it time to bed in.

              Q1281 Neil Carmichael: Are special schools getting adequate representation?

              Nicky Morgan: I would need to go through all the names. Special schools, like alternative provision schools, are a very important part of the system.

              Q1282 Neil Carmichael: Your predecessor stressed that the regional commissioners were going to be looking at academies and free schools. You would imagine that a regional commissioner would want to be thinking about all schools. Is that the direction of travel you are taking?

              Nicky Morgan: It is certainly the direction of travel for the Conservative party.

              Q1283 Neil Carmichael: Right. Do you see that unfolding after the next general election when we triumph?

              Nicky Morgan: Absolutely. I couldn’t agree with you more, Mr Carmichael.

              Q1284 Neil Carmichael: In the meantime, we have regional commissioners dealing predominantly with academies and free schools, local authorities dealing with their mainstream activities and academy chains dealing with what they think is their important project.

              Nicky Morgan: In academy chains, the individual schools are academies themselves. The regional commissioners have a role in that, but they will deal with the chains as much as with the individual academies.

              Q1285 Neil Carmichael: I am painting a picture of at least three structures in operation. Are we really going to see regional commissioners become the key tools for looking at schools in the regions?

              Nicky Morgan: They will certainly be very important. I do not think that the Department is ever going to—nor should it ever—remove itself from being involved. The Secretary of State will always be held accountable.

              Q1286 Neil Carmichael: I am looking downwards, not upwards.

              Nicky Morgan: Absolutely. I think the regional commissioners are going to be very important, as are the head teacher boards. They are the ones in the areas with the intelligence. They are particularly focused on failing schools. Can they do the work required of them? Yes, they can. I have met a number and they are very impressive individuals. When your school is in difficulty, you work with the people in the school—that includes the governors, who are a critical part. I was once asked in an interview if regional commissioners would actually teach individual lessons; the answer is no. They are going to work with the schools and governing bodies to say, “This is what works.”

              Q1287 Neil Carmichael: If a region has an increasing number of academies, there will, by definition, be fewer local authority schools. In that particular region, the regional commissioner would be looking after virtually all the schools because the local authorities would be redundant. Will that be a process of natural wastage or is it a direction of travel that you are pursuing with some purpose?

              Nicky Morgan: I go back to the original question we started the hearing with, which was about the direction of travel for continuing conversions and schools becoming academies and free schools. I have made it clear that I would like to see more schools doing that, but I am not going to compel them to do so. You are absolutely right that if we continue in that direction of travel, the regional schools commissioners, at least under the current policy, would have more schools to look after. Actually, the appointment of regional schools commissioners is a sign of success in the system. It means we have more academies and therefore the Department for Education wanted to have a system in place now to deal with those academies that run into difficulties.

              Q1288 Neil Carmichael: What sort of relationship do you think the regional commissioners will have with Ofsted’s regional structure?

              Nicky Morgan: As I understand it, it is working quite well. There are close links between them. That was part of the reason for having the regional structures. It will be very important. I suspect it will be the same relationship as DfE and individual schools have with Ofsted.

              Q1289 Neil Carmichael: And do you think that having eight regions provides a user-friendly amount of work for the regional commissioners?

              Nicky Morgan: As I say, the focus is very much on failing academies or those that are in Ofsted category 4, which is the proper terminology for me to use. Thankfully, there are only 112 academies in that state at the moment. So, yes, I think eight is the right number. They will have an overall look, with the support of their staff and the head teacher boards.

              Q1290 Ian Mearns: There is an important little point there. There is a fly in the ointment with the relationship between the commissioners and Ofsted on a regional basis because the regions are different.

              Nicky Morgan: I am sure that they are able to work across regional boundaries.

              Q1291 Neil Carmichael: I was wondering about the coterminous question as well. How often do you think you will meet regional commissioners?

              Nicky Morgan: They come into the Department a lot. They talk more, I suspect, to my ministerial colleagues such as Lord Nash, Nick Gibb and David Laws. But I meet a number of them regularly. I would rather they were out in the regions doing the work than sitting in Whitehall talking to me. But the relationship is very important. We obviously still have telephone and e-mail and I can talk to them that way.

              Q1292 Neil Carmichael: Are the regional commissioners likely to form a body that you would meet occasionally so you could set out the overall strategy of the Department?

              Nicky Morgan: Possibly. I don’t think that is something that has been considered yet. It is certainly something that we have seen in a different field with the police and crime commissioners who meet as a body and speak to the Home Secretary regularly. That may be something that we will see.

              Q1293 Neil Carmichael: There are quite a lot of those.

              Nicky Morgan: There are quite a lot of them.

              Q1294 Neil Carmichael: You’ve only got eight. If you have a set of regions with a fairly well identifiable regional commissioner who will become an influential person in his or her region, have you imagined a situation where you could effectively use the regional commissioners as instruments of the Department to promote policies and directions of travel which you saw fit?

              Nicky Morgan: It is always a possibility. At the moment our overall direction of travel is to have a good local school in every area with children getting the best possible education, and the highest qualified work force, which I think we have. We are well on the way. We want to see that grow and expand and the regional schools commissioners will follow that.

              Q1295 Neil Carmichael: I think we all agree about that. None of us is going to sit here saying that we want a few bad schools just to brighten up the scenery. Are you imagining the regional commissioners simply looking at their regions without, as I suppose you could describe it, your strategic leadership?

              Nicky Morgan: I think the DfE will always provide strategic leadership. I also think the regional commissioners will talk to each other. It goes back in a way to the question that we heard earlier about sponsors having academies across the country. There will be times, a bit like Ofsted, when the regional schools commissioner will talk to their fellow commissioner in another area about a school that may be causing them concern to find out whether it is reflected in other regions.

              Q1296 Chair: Did you say at the beginning of your answers to Neil’s questions that the direction of Conservative policy was for regional commissioners to cover all schools?

              Nicky Morgan: Something that we talked about last week was potentially going into all schools that were graded in Ofsted category 4 while academy conversion process is working its way through.

              Q1297 Chair: Okay. Could you lay out for us exactly, because it seems to be expanding all the time, what, exactly, regional schools commissioners will be doing? What do they have to do now and how might that expand in future?

              Nicky Morgan: At the moment they monitor performance and prescribe interventions to secure improvement in underperforming academies and free schools. They take decisions on the creation of new—

              Q1298 Chair: So that might be extended to other schools?

              Nicky Morgan: It could be, yes.

              Neil Carmichael: Because that is what you have got on your website now—that list.

              Nicky Morgan: Exactly, yes. So—[Interruption.]

              Chair: Let the Secretary of State answer. I want to get on the record precisely what they do.

              Nicky Morgan: So obviously, you talk about monitoring performance at the moment; taking decisions on the creation of new academies; making recommendations to Ministers about free school applications; ensuring there are enough high-quality sponsors to meet local need; taking decisions on changes to academies that are already open, and that could include changes to age ranges or mergers, admission arrangements; and providing advice and taking decisions in relation to free schools, UTCs and studio schools.

              Q1299 Chair: And how many staff do they have at the moment?

              Nicky Morgan: I don’t think I have an exact number.

              Chair: Rough?

              Nicky Morgan: I don’t think I’ve got even enough to give you an estimate, I am afraid, but I am happy to confirm that to the Committee, unless somebody behind me is able to give me that piece of paper so I can keep the Committee informed now.

              Q1300 Neil Carmichael: We have already agreed that they are going to have to have more capacity because of the discussion—

              Nicky Morgan: I think if they expand the role—absolutely, yes.

              Q1301 Neil Carmichael: The line of my questioning is basically this: if we are all going to find that academies and free schools are basically what we’ve got, and very few maintained schools, and if we are thinking that regional commissioners anyway would be looking after all schools, and if we think that their role is going to expand, as sort of suggested by the Prime Minister’s speech—sorry, article in the newspapers—and if we are convinced that the regional commissioner role is here to stay and will become embedded, then it is useful to have a discussion about what we think will really happen to the regional commissioners vis-à-vis the Department for Education, their own kind of structures, so that the world of education can recognise where the actual decision making and policies and implementation and all the rest is coming from. Because throughout—

              Chair: Neil, can we have a question?

              Neil Carmichael: Yes. The question basically is, do you recognise what I have just described as the—

              Chair: That will do. I know what my answer would be, but over to you, Secretary of State.

              Nicky Morgan: Can I just confirm that each regional schools commissioner has an office of six people at present, and obviously the elected head teacher boards on top of that. I think it is fair to say that the role of regional schools commissioners is evolving—it is evolutionary—but at the moment we are also, even in the new policy, talking about them looking after schools in Ofsted category 4—schools that are in special measures. There are a limited number of those across the country.

              There will be other queries. I don’t know how many schools are going through age range changes as in Leicestershire—I suspect it is a smaller number—but actually in terms of focusing on schools that need that specific assistance, maybe some that are converting, it is a small number, which I am confident that the eight regional commissioners can handle.

              Q1302 Chair: Even with that level of staff?

              Nicky Morgan: Yes.

              Q1303 Chair: Okay. But if you are looking at expanding it to cover all schools, it sounds remarkably like the Blunkett model.

              Nicky Morgan: No, because as I understand the Blunkett model, you are talking about between 80 and 100 of these directors of school standards, so that is more jobs, obviously at the taxpayer’s expense, and I think that having these eight really front-line, former head teachers—one of them is a former—

              Q1304 Chair: They are not that front line if there are only eight of them. You could say they are tremendously removed from the front line. How many thousands of schools—

              Nicky Morgan: There is a tremendous amount of experience here from people who have worked and have made changes in the system.

              Q1305 Chair: We had them in front of us.

              Nicky Morgan: You have met them.

              Q1306 Chair: Exactly. And from Frank Green, the chief of them, to the individuals who have been appointed, they all set out that they expected it to need to grow in number because of the duties being placed on them. Even Mystic Morgan is reluctant to paint too much of a future picture, but would you imagine that by 2020, if we stick with the current model, we would have more of them than we do now?

              Nicky Morgan: I don’t think we will have more regional schools commissioners, but I expect that their offices will have grown.

              Neil Carmichael: That is inevitable, isn’t it, because local authorities will diminish?

              Chair: Thank you, Neil.

              Nicky Morgan: You are right about the change in responsibilities, yes.

              Q1307 Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): I know you don’t want to speculate about the future, but how much do you see them growing by?

              Nicky Morgan: I’m not going to put numbers on it. At the end of the day, look, as a parent of a child in the system, I want what is effective. I want to know, and my role as Secretary of State for Education is to support having an effective system that intervenes in schools when there are problems—does not waste any time, gets in there, works with those in the schools to turn those schools around. So I am not going to sit here and say, it is going to take 10, 20 or 30 staff; I am interested in what works.

              Q1308 Chair: So David Blunkett could be right. If it takes 80 or 100, there will be 80 or 100.

              Nicky Morgan: Well, no. David Blunkett is talking about having— The staff we are talking about here are not called directors of school standards. They are supporting the eight regional schools commissioners. It is a different model that recognises that there is a need for that level of support.

              Q1309 Bill Esterson: Is school improvement part of their remit?

              Nicky Morgan: Yes, absolutely.

              Q1310 Bill Esterson: Okay. So, we took evidence from Hampshire County Council saying that school improvement involves face-to-face meetings several times a year. A staff of 48 to cover 4,000 academies sounds like it is going to be a challenge.

              Nicky Morgan: At the moment, it covers 112 academies that need that specific improvement. As I have already said, their staff could expand if we were to expand that to covering local authority maintained schools while a sponsors and conversion process was happening. So we are not talking about covering— In terms of school improvement, we have 112 academies that are in that system of school improvement.

              Chair: Bill, I am sorry to interrupt. We have limited time left. If we can have short sharp questions and answers from the Committee, I know the Secretary of State will continue to be succinct and to the point.

              Q1311 Bill Esterson: Absolutely, as always. Presumably there needs to be a relationship between the schools commissioner, staff and those 4,000 academies—you agree with that?

              Nicky Morgan: They have to know what is going on across the schools in their region. As I say, I think that process is working well. They gather intelligence and information from a wide variety of different sources. They are already doing that.

              Q1312 Bill Esterson: Because one of the reasons for this was that the Secretary of State could not manage 4,000 schools from his or her desk in Whitehall.

              Nicky Morgan: Look, I work quite long hours and I would rather spend a little more time with my family. There is a limit. I do not think that these things should necessarily be managed from Whitehall, because we are talking about an autonomous, school-led, self-improving system. The regional schools commissioners have a big role to play in that.

              Q1313 Bill Esterson: Of course, but the point being that you are open to this idea that there needs to be much greater support, whether it is schools commissioners or whatever structure.

              Nicky Morgan: I am not sure that it is necessarily more support. Where a school is failing, the commissioner has to go in and offer that support with their staff and the head teacher and boards as well, but there are a lot of other things, which do not have to have an on-going basis. So, for example, we had an age range change in my area. What it needed, which we got, was support and interest from the Education Funding Agency.

              Q1314 Bill Esterson: We have heard evidence that local authorities continue to play a critical role. We have talked a bit about some of this and you have written to us to clarify your comments last week on admissions, for example. How are you going to make sure that local authorities have the resources they need, whether for place planning permissions or things like inclusion, that are still their responsibility?

              Nicky Morgan: We will continue to work with them in the way that we have done. The regional schools commissioners are a new part of the landscape, but we already have teams in the DfE whose role is to liaise with local authorities up and down the country on a variety of different issues. I am not sure you mentioned it there, but also one of the critical roles that local authorities play is in relation to safeguarding.

              Q1315 Bill Esterson: Absolutely. I am glad you mentioned safeguarding, because we tend to neglect children’s services, because it is called education. Perhaps, Chair, we will have a chance to discuss it with the Secretary of State  on another occasion. Are you going to make sure that they have the resources and the money so that they can have the staff to address all those really important responsibilities?

              Nicky Morgan: I am sure I shall have long, involved conversations with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others in the Department. Funding is key for the children’s services departments.

              Q1316 Bill Esterson: I am sure local authorities will be thrilled to hear that. How can you make sure that there is proper sharing of information between all of the bodies involved in the oversight of academies? You have local authorities, regional schools commissioners, Ofsted, the EFA, the DfE. I don’t know if I have missed anybody.

              Nicky Morgan: It is about good communication. We have teams of people in the Department and others. Even though we have taken a dramatic number of— We have cut costs in the Department, but there is still very close working. I have been very impressed since my arrival in July with how much DfE officials are on top and in contact with all the different bodies, including local authorities.

              Q1317 Mr Ward: Parents have told us that they do not really know how to complain or who to complain to. Do you understand that?

              Nicky Morgan: I do understand that. Funnily enough, it came up briefly last week, when we talked about complaints, so I went away and had a think about that. Clearly, parents will often complain directly to the academy first and to the head teacher, or to the maintained school, but there are a number of different avenues they can pursue, whether it is local authorities, local Members of Parliament, regional schools commissioners or the Department directly.

              Q1318 Mr Ward: Why do you think they feel like that? I know that, you know that; why do they not know that?

              Nicky Morgan: I think that, often, people hope they are not going to have to complain, whether it is about schools, hospitals or anything else, until it happens. Then it is a question of, “Where do we go?” The question is, how do we make that easy? I suspect that, probably, on a new parents evening, the head or a head of year will stand up and say, “If you have a problem, please come and talk to me,” but a lot of people will not remember that until there is a problem. You need to have a system, perhaps something on the school website saying, “If there is an issue, this is where you go”.

              Q1319 Mr Ward: What carrot would you use to try to entice more schools to make parents aware of the routes that are available to them?

              Nicky Morgan: I think I would go back to trusting in the professionalism of the heads and teachers in the system. I certainly know, as a Member of Parliament, that I would much rather hear about an issue directly rather than watch for people raising it via social media or going over my head, as I might feel, directly to the Department, the local Member of Parliament, the regional schools commissioner or the local authority.

              Q1320 Mr Ward: You are a very trusting person. Have you had many disappointments in your life?

              Nicky Morgan: I have had a number, David, mainly since I became involved in politics, but I do believe in the power of individuals.

              Q1321 Chair: On the point about regional schools commissioners, you mentioned that last week as a possible avenue and then wrote to us about it. I cannot seem to find the letter, but I thought it said that regional schools commissioners would simply refer on to the DfE, so it is not their role. It would actually be best to expunge them from the list if we want clarity for parents, because if they are only going to refer on, parents should be told to go direct to where they are going to get help, rather than to yet another holding pattern.

              Nicky Morgan: They might be, but the point is that if somebody has a complaint, I would rather they found a mechanism for getting that complaint into the system. Regional schools commissioners, Members of Parliament and local authorities are all part of that system.

              Q1322 Mr Ward: I am interested in the degree of supervision at Kings. Sorry, I know I am a dog with a bone. We are led to believe that it operated for a year without a chair of governors. Is that acceptable?

              Nicky Morgan: I suppose it depends—I would rather have no chair of governors than a bad chair of governors, with the rest of the people on the governing body being able to make decisions, but of course a strong governing body is essential.

              Q1323 Mr Ward: A very specific question: the Public Accounts Committee suggests that the EFA’s role should be split in two—funding and regulation. Have you looked at that proposal?

              Nicky Morgan: I haven’t particularly, but I have certainly asked the question about whether the Department has looked at it. Rather than spending time restructuring and changing things, I like things to work. I refer again to Peter Lauener’s letter to the Committee, which I thought was a very clear and helpful letter for all of us to think about.

              Q1324 Chair: It didn’t address any of the specifics in the report, which, for the record, we commissioned but did not endorse. It forms evidence to this inquiry.

              Nicky Morgan: But I think he was right. As I understand it, he was trying to set out to the Committee the process for how the accountability system worked. I think they felt that there were some errors in that report.

              Q1325 Pat Glass: Secretary of State, may I ask you about primary academisation? The inquiry has heard really quite strong evidence to suggest that stand-alone primaries are neither workable nor effective. Would you agree with that?

              Nicky Morgan: No, I wouldn’t agree with that based on past experience, but there is no doubt that primaries can benefit from working together, whether as part of some sort of hard or soft federation. I have seen successes, and often it is larger primaries that are particularly able to be successful converters.

              Q1326 Pat Glass: As part of this inquiry, the Committee has met some really inspiring primary heads who are part of all kinds of collaborations. Some are part of multi-agency trusts and some are just part of trusts, in some cases led by local authority schools. Others are part of federations. We note from the DfE website that in the case of primary schools, £100,000 will be offered to three schools creating a multi-agency trust—

              Chair: Multi-academy trust.

              Pat Glass: Multi-academy trust, sorry. There will be an extra £10,000 for each school that joins a new multi-agency trust.

              Chair: Academy.

              Pat Glass: Right. What was I saying—agency? Sorry. The qualification—this is what it says on the website—is that one school in the chain must be “performing well”. It is not that it must be outstanding or good. I do not think there is any legal definition of “performing well”. Again, to come back to public money and taxpayers’ money, why is this huge amount of public money being offered to schools, which are seemingly being bribed, to enter a multi-academy trust, when equally successful primary schools that are forming themselves into collaborations based around trusts or federations are not getting a penny?

              Nicky Morgan: I think that they do get money when they convert, but obviously less. Working together, whether or not in a formal collaboration, does help. I have had conversations with many primary heads, and they are reluctant to go it alone. It is quite a big step to take. It is an easier decision to make when you are a much bigger secondary school, and again it seems to have been an easy decision to take for the secondary heads I have spoken to. This is recognising that, for those who convert, there will be conversion costs, and that there is support available. To go back to my first answer to the question this morning, I would like to see more schools converting to academies. 

              Q1327 Pat Glass: But in a sense this looks like a desperate attempt to bribe schools into multi-academy trusts when they are equally successful—sometimes more so—collaborating in partnerships and federations. Why can’t the Department recognise that? 

              Nicky Morgan: The Department does recognise that, but there is also recognition that there are some costs associated in particular with schools beginning to work together, over and above those for a school converting on its own. That is what this is about.

              Q1328 Pat Glass: So there are not costs involved in becoming a federation?

              Nicky Morgan: They will probably be different costs. If you are going to become a chain, I actually think that there would be a more significant cost.

              Q1329 Pat Glass: Secretary of State, why can’t the Department recognise good schools for being good schools and not have this kind of bribery around one form of collaboration?

              Nicky Morgan: We do. I could not have been clearer, since my appointment, that although I absolutely support and would like to see more free schools set up and more academisation, there are many thousands of schools across the country that are still state maintained and that do an excellent job and are full of outstanding staff.

              Q1330 Ian Mearns: What is the proportion of primary schools that have now transferred to academies—is it about 14%, or something along those lines?

              Nicky Morgan: I think I had 17% in mind. Does somebody have the figure? It is 59% of secondaries; I think it was 17% of primaries.

              Q1331 Ian Mearns: So 83% of primary schools have yet to convert to academy status, yet in many places around the country schools in particular neighbourhoods are working very collaboratively together and are achieving very good results. I am not absolutely certain about this, but I understand that in Gateshead, for instance, we have a larger proportion of good and outstanding schools than any other place in the country, yet for primary academy status they are very few and far between. Those other schools cannot get the sort of financial incentives that Pat is talking about.

              Nicky Morgan: This goes back to the question I was asked earlier about freedom. Many schools are providing an excellent education, but other freedoms and opportunities are on offer by following academisation—the conversion process. We would like to see more schools do that because lots of excellent heads are doing that. I could give the example of Darlington, where a very high proportion of secondaries and primaries have converted.

              Q1332 Ian Mearns: The point I am making, Secretary of State, is that to be a good or outstanding school, or to be in a partnership of good and outstanding schools, does not necessarily rely on academisation as status of choice, yet the Department has a very different approach in terms of financial relationship.

              Nicky Morgan: There is a different approach because there is a different relationship in terms of the freedoms and autonomy that being an academy brings. Therefore that brings a different financial relationship. I go back to my point that there are many schools within the state-maintained system that provide an excellent education, but there is now a next step for them to take. That is why heads often make the decision to get those additional freedoms.

              Q1333 Ian Mearns: I honestly would ask you to reflect on that. It seems grossly unfair, because there are schools that are doing extremely well by the children they serve but have chosen not to go down the academy route at the moment. It seems to me to be more ideological than pragmatic.

              Nicky Morgan: I am not an ideological person. I am very much a pragmatic, “what works” person. We take the need to fund all schools—

              Q1334 Chair: So if the evidence suggests that hard federations without becoming academies deliver the same results as a multi-academy trust in the primary sector, you would look at extending the financing available, because there are costs in collaboration and cross-school working. Would you do that?

              Nicky Morgan: I’m not going to commit to that, but we are always open to ideas.

              Q1335 Chair: So if the evidence suggests that hard federations offer just as much benefit as academies, you will not commit to giving them equal treatment, even though you are not an ideological person.

              Nicky Morgan: I’m not committing. I will always look at the evidence. What I am most interested in is the evidence that shows what works.

              Q1336 Chair: I admittedly gave you a hypothetical—that if the evidence showed that, which it may not, depending on your review of it. If the freedoms that academies have are so useful, why not simply extend them to all schools?

              Nicky Morgan: Because it is about the concept of being free of, often away from, local authorities and of having that direct relationship with the DfE. It is very interesting and, when you go around schools that have converted or are sponsored, it is inspirational. The head teachers with the ability to have the confidence in themselves to run the school as they want it and to make those decisions is very noticeable.

              Q1337 Pat Glass: Policy Exchange recently recommended that all primary schools should become academies by 2020. Is that Government policy? Is that something you support? Is it pie in the sky?

              Nicky Morgan: I’m not aware that Policy Exchange writes Government policy. I get many, many different pamphlets and I look at all of them.

              Pat Glass: Is it pie in the sky?

              Nicky Morgan: I get many different submissions and pamphlets. I look at all of them.

              Q1338 Alex Cunningham: Coming on to free schools, which I think is the last section, is it appropriate to use parental demand to measure the need for a new free school? Has the Department designed its definition on the need to fit the policy, rather than the policy to meet the need?

              Nicky Morgan: No, I do think it’s appropriate. At the end of the day, parents know what is best for their children. I firmly believe that. If parents in an area are saying, “Actually, we aren’t very happy with the education provision we have. We don’t think that the places here are right. We do think that there’s an opportunity to have a new school,” then I am absolutely about listening to the parents. But I will just go back to the point that 72% of free schools at the moment are set up in areas of basic need. That figure goes to 90% when you look at all the schools in the pipeline, if they open.

              Q1339 Alex Cunningham: Yes, but it is not parents who are driving free schools—is it?—it is other organisations.

              Nicky Morgan: It’s a combination. What is really interesting is that the figures show the number of applications to have free schools is going up. Last week, I met 200 of the schools that are being set up and in the pipeline, many of them driven by parents and all of them absolutely delighted with the opportunities that the policy is offering them.

              Alex Cunningham: Let’s hope that we see more of that. Figures—

              Nicky Morgan: Is that a change of policy?

              Q1340 Alex Cunningham: Figures indicate that while free schools may be located in deprived areas, they are not serving the disadvantaged so well. For example, the number of disadvantaged pupils that they have is lower than in neighbouring schools; the number of children on free school meals tends to be lower than in neighbouring schools. What do you have to say about that?

              Nicky Morgan: Well, 49% of free schools have been set up in 30% of the most deprived communities. We would like to see more of that. You are absolutely right about the focus—whether we are talking about good teachers or good schools—which should be to get them into the most disadvantaged areas of our country.

              Q1341 Alex Cunningham: It looks as though deprived children have less chance of getting into one of the academy schools than they do of getting into a normal neighbourhood school.

              Nicky Morgan: No, I don’t think that’s right. We are only two or three years into the free schools policy. We have seen that there are places available. Eventually, we will have what schools in the pipeline are offering, which will be 200,000 places, many in deprived areas—

              Alex Cunningham: I’m not sure you are correct. I just ask you to look at the figures and the proportions that are going in. I will leave you to do that.

              Q1342 Bill Esterson: In your letter to us, you made the point about complying with the code in the Academies Act 2010, that academies should operate inclusive admission arrangements, which serve “pupils who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which the school is situated”, and that academies cannot develop admission arrangements that exclude those in deprived areas. Yet the figures are showing that that code is not being followed by free schools.

              Nicky Morgan: Well, we look at the admission arrangements of all free schools to make sure that they comply with the admissions code. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator will look at objections made to admissions. If there are free schools, I would say that we look at the admissions arrangements, and we are very clear about what they should be. There is a mechanism for complaints to be made about that.

              Q1343 Bill Esterson: You put this in your letter to us. It isn’t happening. Can you go away and make sure that it does?

              Nicky Morgan: If there is another evidence session or anything that you want to share with me afterwards, as the Secretary of State, or with the Department, I am very happy for you to follow that up.

              Q1344 Alex Cunningham: By your own figures this morning, nearly 30% of free schools of inadequate, so there are problems. Does spending £50 million on free schools that are judged to be inadequate or requiring improvement by Ofsted represent good value for money?

              Nicky Morgan: I would make a couple of points there. First, 71% are good or outstanding. Secondly, a number of them have only been open for two or three years. They have all been inspected under the new Ofsted framework, which obviously does not have—

              Q1345 Alex Cunningham: What about the 30%?

              Nicky Morgan: Well, the new Ofsted framework does not have the “satisfactory” category, which is right, and the replacement is “requires improvement”. In terms of all schools in the most recent inspection, 20% either required improvement or were inadequate. In all inspections under the new framework, 36% of schools have either been inadequate or require improvement. Where there is an issue, the Department will absolutely intervene—we have already been over that this morning—very quickly to ensure that robust action is taken, but 71% are providing good or outstanding education.

              Q1346 Alex Cunningham: Yes, well, as I say, it is the others that I am worried about. You made some comments earlier about wanting the highest-qualified staff in our schools and yet a third of free schools have employed unqualified teachers, including Al-Madinah and the Discovery new school, which is now closed and where the unqualified head teacher was said to have lacked the skills and knowledge to improve teaching. Can you outline what your attitude and policy are in relation to unqualified teachers in schools across the piece? What advice are you giving to academies and free schools in particular?

              Nicky Morgan: I’ve got the numbers, actually. In academies, 95% of teachers are qualified, compared with 96% in maintained schools. My view is that we have a highly qualified teaching profession, but there will be times when a head teacher will decide to bring somebody in, often in relation to technical education, such as engineers or business people, who may not be qualified teachers but who can offer fantastic education and can open up young minds, which is what the education system is all about. We obviously inspect all schools to ensure that they are offering excellent education. We have that Ofsted framework.

              I should just correct something that you said earlier on. It is 5% of free schools that are inadequate. The other percentage may be those that require improvement, such as those schools that have been open for a number of years.

              Chair: Sorry, Alex, but I’m going to move on.

              Q1347 Ian Mearns: The Department told the Committee that the number of parents proposing free schools is falling, indicating that free school proposers did not adhere to the original vision for the programme. From your perspective, what is unique about free schools?

              Nicky Morgan: It is the opportunity to respond to demand, whether for more places or for a different or better kind of education than is on offer. Rather than being told, “I’m sorry if you are not happy with the local school, but your child still has to go there,” there are opportunities to set up a school and to have those freedoms, which is something to be celebrated. I recently went to the King’s college London mathematics school, which is very focused on STEM subjects and is truly innovative and inspirational.

              Q1348 Ian Mearns: So is the purpose of free schools, from your perspective, to provide competitive pressure to improve standards and choice, or is it a fast way to meet a shortfall in places? It does seem to be different in different places.

              Nicky Morgan: Everywhere across the country is different. Some areas have a particular need for more places. Free schools are a part of the answer. As I said earlier, this Government have spent £5 billion in this Parliament on expanding existing schools to provide more places, but there will other parts of the country that desire innovation or a particular school, which is what the free schools policy offers.

              Q1349 Ian Mearns: Will you as the new Secretary of State—new broom and so on—scrutinise the establishment of those free schools where there is clear evidence that the unit cost per pupil just seems outwith what would be expected across the piece?

              Nicky Morgan: We scrutinise every free school application in terms of the value for money that it offers. That is one of the grounds on which we will say no.

              Q1350 Ian Mearns: So next year, if the electorate protects us and if we come back and I am talking to you, you will show us that the free schools programme is proving to be absolutely value for money.

              Nicky Morgan: I think it is proving to be value all round. If you’re saying that Labour party policy is now to maintain and build on free schools, I am delighted to hear it.

              Q1351 Bill Esterson: The Public Accounts Committee found that only 19% of secondary places in free schools open so far were in areas of high or severe need. How is that value for money?

              Nicky Morgan: I need to go away and look at the definitions of high and severe need, but there are areas of need across the country.

              Q1352 Bill Esterson: Presumably, you have seen the report.

              Nicky Morgan: I personally haven’t seen the report.

              Q1353 Bill Esterson: You haven’t looked at a report into your own Department on such a high-profile policy.

              Nicky Morgan: Not that one, no.

              Q1354 Chair: May I just touch on conflicts of interest to finish? It appears that some schools run by the Inspiration Trust were given forewarning about Ofsted inspections. The trust is run by Theodore Agnew, who is the head of the non-executive directors at the board of the Department for Education. It does not look terribly good that this cosy coterie of well-connected people end up getting information that tips off schools to inspection in a way that others do not. Have you any thoughts on that? How can we maintain public confidence that there is no cosy coterie sharing information that only occasionally comes to light?

              Nicky Morgan: Well, I don’t think that there is. I am sure that the Committee is aware of the report by Sir Robin Bosher, the director of quality at HMCI. He investigated those allegations and found there to be no evidence whatsoever that advance notice had been given.

              Q1355 Chair: Further information seems to have come to light now.

              Nicky Morgan: That is a matter for the trust to follow up, but the report that was prepared over the summer could not be clearer. I understand from the report that there was a subsequent unannounced inspection.

              Q1356 Chair: If there is more information, should it be provided to Sir Robin to look into the matter again? If the basis on which he came to his conclusions that there had been no prior notice turns out to be incorrect, that needs to be revisited to ensure that the truth is out.

              Nicky Morgan: Absolutely. I am certain that all those involved and named in the articles will be looking at this further.

              Chair: Super. Thank you very much for giving evidence to us today—two weeks in a row.

              Nicky Morgan: Thank you.

              Oral evidence: Academies and free schools, HC 258                            20