COM0001

Written evidence submitted by the National Union of Teachers

Introduction

1. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) is the largest teachers’ union.

2. The NUT welcomes many of the conclusions of the Children’s Commissioner’s report ‘Ambitious for Children’. All aspects of the report are very important but in our response we have focused on child poverty; refugee children; and exams and school accountability.

3. Teachers are ambitious for children. Children’s holistic needs should to be prioritised in Government policy. This one-off evidence session is, therefore, very important.

Child Poverty

4. We are pleased that the Children’s Commissioner recognises the seriousness of child poverty in England and is committed to responding. We agree that “sustained action” is needed.

5. We are puzzled by the figure of 2.7 million children living in poverty given in ‘Ambitious for Children’. The UK figures are that, in 2013/14, there were 2.3 million children living in poverty before housing costs and 3.7 million by, the more appropriate, after housing costs figure.[1] The ‘2.7 million’ figure may refer to the IFS UK projection for the 2014/15 before housing cost figure.

6. Teachers are first-hand witnesses of the extent of material disadvantage faced by pupils in schools. Teachers will always do their best in the circumstances for every student but the circumstances are getting worse. For example, children living in poor, overcrowded or insecure housing and those who are hungry struggle to learn. Close to 100,000 children are living in temporary accommodation having been made homeless.[2] Teachers are working in contexts where many children are facing complex and multiple forms of disadvantage and deprivation. School improvement strategies alone are not the solution to tackle poverty and inequality.

7. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) point out that, between 2010 and 2020, child benefit is projected to lose 28 per cent of its value.[3] We would strongly encourage the Children’s Commissioner to work to ensure that children’s benefits be given the same ‘triple-lock’ protection as basic state pensions enjoy.

8. Through provisions in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, the Government propose to remove income from the measure of child poverty citing concerns about the relative income measure. This is disingenuous and there are strong arguments against their proposals, including:

• A lack of money is the basic definition of poverty.
• The relative measure is considered alongside three others in the 2010 Child Poverty Act.
• The relative income measure is used in all other countries in the OECD to measure child poverty.

9. The current Government’s intention to remove income-based measurements and targets for child poverty are deeply worrying. How will the Children’s Commissioner challenge these plans?

Refugee Children

10. We welcome the Children’s Commissioner’s emphasis on the needs of ‘children who enter the country as unaccompanied asylum seekers’ and her commitment to ‘continue to examine their treatment by the authorities and work to ensure they get the support they need.’ We are concerned about the services which are available for these children and for accompanied asylum seeker and refugee children.

11. Some of these children have experienced war, rape or family separation. Who does the Children’s Commissioner think should be responsible for mapping the services and expertise, for example therapeutic services, available to meet the needs of these children?

12. How will the Children’s Commissioner ensure that appropriate funding is provided to local authorities for such support after the 12 months of DFID funding ends?

Exams and Accountability

13. We note that the recent YouGov survey conducted by the Children’s Commissioner, and quoted in ‘Ambitious for Children’, found that: “Children are clear that they want fewer exams and tests”. Further research echoes these findings.

14. The NUT recently commissioned independent research into the impact of school accountability measures on children and young people. The research was conducted by Prof Merryn Hutchings and led to a report entitled, ‘Exam Factories? The impact of accountability measures on children and young people’.[4] This ground-breaking research showed the negative impacts of the current accountability system on both children’s education and their well-being. These negative impacts were much greater for disadvantaged pupils, who were also more likely to experience a narrowing of the curriculum.

15. The CBI is also concerned about our current accountability system. John Cridland CBE, the Director General of the CBI, spoke at the launch of ‘Exam Factories?’ where he stated that: “teachers try to put the child first, despite the system, rather than because of the system”. In June this year, he also said that: “In weaker schools, fear of Ofsted drives behaviours which lead to perverse outcomes, instead of better ones. All too often, it’s only the data which matters.” He said, “we need curriculum reform, not just exam reform. We should stop using exams as a tool to influence education rather than accredit it.”[5]

16. Accountability for schools and for teachers is essential but the current political agenda on school accountability is putting undue pressure on pupils which is harmful to their education and their wellbeing. The profession is calling for an urgent review of school accountability to ensure that indicators are realistic, constructive and balanced and to separate out the requirements of school accountability from pupil assessment.

17. What will the Children’s Commissioner do to ensure that the school accountability system ceases to have such a negative impact on pupils?

October 2015