February 26th, 2016 by Peter Oldham QC
On Tuesday this week, the Education and Adoption Bill completed its passage through Parliament, with the Commons considering the Lords’ proposed amendments. Some were agreed. These were largely clarifications of the Secretary of State’s powers to take action on “coasting schools”.
The Bill gives a new power of intervention in such schools by adding to the grounds on which SoS can take action in the Education and Skills Act 2006.
Peter Oldham QC
February 21st, 2016 by Rachel Kamm
The DfE has published new advice for local authorities and new school proposers on the free school presumption. The background is that if a local authority thinks that a new school needs to be established, section 6A of the Education and Inspection Act 2006 requires it to seek proposals to establish an academy (free school) and to specify a date by which proposals must be submitted. The new advice covers the consultation process, impact and equalities assessments, seeking proposals, funding arrangements, notifying the Department, sponsor approval, assessing proposals, scoring, the funding agreement, sponsor consultation and communication.
Rachel Kamm, 11KBW, @kamm11kbw
February 19th, 2016 by Peter Oldham QC
Yesterday’s decision in R ota HA v Hampstead School concerns the power to transfer a pupil to off-site provision for behavioural reasons in section 29A of the Education Act 2002 and the Education (Educational Provision for Improving Behaviour) Regulations 2010. Section 29A says that the power rests with the governing body, but relying on DFE Guidance the judge held that the headteacher can exercise the power under delegated authority. However the claim succeeded because the school breached notification provisions under the Regulations, and failed to conduct a review.
Peter Oldham QC
February 13th, 2016 by Rachel Kamm
The House of Lords has made minor amendments (proposed by the Government) to the Education and Adoption Bill at the Third Reading. The amendments will be considered by the House of Commons on 23 February 2016, as the Bill enters the Ping Pong stage.
Rachel Kamm, 11KBW, @kamm11KBW
January 27th, 2016 by Peter Oldham QC
Following Clive’s interesting and informative post just now, a word or two more. The highly fact sensitive approach adopted in R ota X v Y School is also apparent in the employment case of Azmi v Kirklees BC  IRLR 434. Here a primary school teaching assistant wished to wear the niqab in the classroom. The school declined her request. Many of her pupils had English as a second language and the school believed that they should be able to see the teacher’s face as she spoke, so as to increase their proficiency. Applying the same sort of approach that Silber J applied in R ot a X v Y School, the employment tribunal rejected her claim that the school had discriminated against her on grounds of her religion or belief in declining to let her wear the niqab in the classroom. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the ET’s decision.
Peter Oldham QC – Peter appeared in both Azmi v Kirklees BC and R ota X v Y School
January 27th, 2016 by Clive Sheldon QC
Last week the Prime Minister entered into the debate on the wearing of veils by Muslim women in schools (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-will-back-uk-muslim-veil-bans-as-he-announces-new-measures-to-tackle-segregation-a6820491.html). This week, it is the turn of the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshire. The Chief Inspector has said that:
“The Prime Minister and Secretary of State are right to give their backing to schools and other institutions which insist on removing face coverings when it makes sense to do so.
I am concerned that some heads and principals who are trying to restrict the wearing of the full veil in certain circumstances are coming under pressure from others to relax their policy. I want to assure these leaders that they can rely on my full backing for the stance they are taking.
I have also made clear to my inspectors that where leaders are condoning the wearing of the face veil by staff members or by pupils when this is clearly hindering communication and effective teaching, they should give consideration to judging the school as inadequate.
I am determined to ensure that discrimination, including on the grounds of gender, has no place in our classrooms. We want our schools, whether faith schools or non-faith schools, to prepare their pupils equally for life in 21st century Britain. We need to be confident our children’s education and future prospects are not being harmed in any way.”
Read more »
January 19th, 2016 by Rachel Kamm
Since my last update on 21 October 2015, the Education and Adoption Bill has been through the committee and report stages in the Lords. The next step will be Lords third reading, on a date to be confirmed.
After the committee stage, Lord Nash wrote to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about the proposed powers in respect of coasting schools and explained that the Bill would be amended as follows:
- the Bill will require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the definition of a coasting school (rather than just giving the SoS the power to do so);
- “it may be unintentionally misleading to suggest that the Secretary of State will notify a school when she
“considers” it to be coasting and we will therefore amend the Bill to be clear that a school will be notified when “it is coasting” as per the definition set out in regulations“;
- the Bill will “allow the Secretary of State, through regulations, to disapply the coasting definition to certain types of schools“. The SoS intends to disapply the definition to maintained nursery schools and at the time it was consulting on other types;
- the coasting regulations will be subjected to the affirmative procedure when they are first laid (but not for subsequent versions); and
- “we will continue to consider whether it is appropriate to amend primary legislation [to include more detail on the coasting criteria] following the conclusion of the consultation“.
These amendments were introduced at the Lords report stage and agreed.
The consultation on coasting schools ended on 18 December 2015 and the Government’s response is awaited.
Rachel Kamm, 11KBW, @kamm11KBW
January 17th, 2016 by Rachel Kamm
This is the latest instalment in the long-running tale about students who are not eligible for student loans because of their immigration status.
In the summer, the Supreme Court found that a student loans eligibility requirement that a student be settled in the UK breached their rights under Article 14 read with Article 2 of the First Protocol of the ECHR: R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills  UKSC 57. I posted it about the decision here: in summary, the Court found that the settlement criterion for student loans discriminated on ground of immigration status in the enjoyment of the right to education. The regulations in question pursued a legitimate aim, namely targeting resources on those students who were likely to stay in the UK to complete their education and afterwards contribute to the UK economy through their enhanced skills and the taxes they pay. However, the means chosen to pursue that legitimate aim were not rationally connected to it; Ms Tigere had discretionary leave to remain in the UK and an established private life here. A bright line rule which more closely fitted the legitimate aims of the measure could have been chosen. Read more »
January 14th, 2016 by Peter Oldham QC
by Peter Oldham QC
A Social Market Foundation report entitled “Educational inequalities in England and Wales” has just been published and it’s available here. It contains a great deal of fascinating information, though quite of a lot of it (as you might expect) is not great news.
The SMF looked at inequalities in educational attainment at ages 11 and 16 and how changes in patterns of inequality have evolved over time, by reference to the influence of region, family income, gender and ethnicity.
Regional inequalities are reported to have “remained stubborn and in some cases worsened”, with London and the South East out-performing the rest of the country in GCSEs. The difference in achievement between the richest and the poorest stayed “persistently large” between the 1980s and the 2000s. Patterns of ethnic inequality have greatly changed but a “similar level of unevenness” between ethnic groups remains. Girls outperform boys, and the gender gap has widened.
Peter Oldham QC