📚 Oral Answers to Questions

• Exceptional Funding for Schools:
  • Sarah Green raised concerns about Chesham grammar school not receiving exceptional funding to use a sports hall for PE lessons. Minister Catherine McKinnell explained that funding is allocated on a case-by-case basis and offered to meet with Sarah to discuss the issue further.
  • The Minister clarified that funding cannot be used for local authority-owned facilities, urging local authorities to organise provision within their budgets.
• Breakfast Clubs:
  • The Labour Government announced a significant increase in investment in breakfast clubs, aiming to start the day better for children and save parents up to £450 annually.
  • Criticism came from Conservative members who questioned the funding model and its sufficiency, but the government defended the initiative as a major step to improve life chances for children.
• Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence (RISE) Teams:
  • RISE teams have started their work to improve school standards, focusing on schools identified as needing assistance. Bridget Phillipson emphasized the mandatory engagement with these teams and the government’s commitment to not tolerating poor school performance.
• Curriculum and Assessment Review:
  • The review aims to ensure students are prepared for future challenges and employment. An interim report is expected in the spring.
  • There were concerns about SATs and their impact on learning, but the government is considering all aspects of assessment in schools.
• Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Funding:
  • The government is investing £1 billion into SEND services and £740 million to create more specialist places. Plans for reforming the SEND system are promised to address the current “lose, lose, lose” situation.
  • MPs raised specific cases about SEND provision and funding, with ministers agreeing to meet to discuss these further.
• Institutes of Technology (IoTs):
  • The government values the role of IoTs in developing curriculums in partnership with local employers for sustainable talent pathways. They plan to continue working with these institutions.
• Reading for Pleasure:
  • Labour announced £2 million to promote reading in schools, emphasizing the importance of reading for pleasure alongside phonics education.
  • Concerns were raised about the decline in children reading for pleasure due to smartphone usage, with the government highlighting the need for both home and school encouragement of reading.
• Breaking Down Barriers to Opportunity:
  • The Labour Government aims to break the link between background and success through early years education reform and initiatives like breakfast clubs.
  • Questions were raised about how these initiatives address specific community challenges and the role of local authorities in supporting national education goals.
• Schooling Costs:
  • Initiatives such as free breakfast clubs and limiting branded school uniform items aim to reduce costs for parents.
  • Concerns were noted about the transportation costs for SEND students and the overall cost of school uniforms, with more discussions and government action anticipated.
• School Exclusions for Pupils with SEND:
  • The government is reviewing exclusion trends and aims to provide better support for SEND students to reduce exclusions.
  • Specific cases were mentioned to illustrate the urgency of the issue, with ministers promising continued work to improve the situation.
• Management Accountability in Multi-Academy Trusts:
  • The government is working on improving oversight in multi-academy trusts through Ofsted reform and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, aiming for higher standards and accountability.
• Agricultural Education and Training:
  • Funding for agricultural education will see a 3.78% increase, with additional support promised to promote farming as a viable career path.
• Construction Apprenticeships:
  • The government is establishing homebuilding skills hubs to create more construction apprenticeship places, aiming to meet demand and support the construction industry.
• School Building Programmes:
  • Over £1.4 billion is committed to continuing the school rebuilding programme, with several schools in various stages of improvement.
  • The focus is on ensuring schools have necessary resources and buildings to support learning.
• General Education Priorities and Investments:
  • The government outlined ongoing efforts to improve early years education, increase apprenticeship opportunities, and stabilize university finances, all aimed at enhancing opportunities and meeting educational challenges head-on.

The session displays a moderate level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 3. This is primarily evident in exchanges between political parties and in discussions about specific policies and their impacts. Here are detailed examples and explanations supporting this rating:

1. Exceptional Funding for Schools:
   • Sarah Green (Liberal Democrat) raised concerns about the denial of exceptional funding to Chesham grammar school. Catherine McKinnell (Labour), while offering to meet to discuss the specific case, firmly stated the reasons for denying the funding. This exchange reflects a disagreement on funding allocations but also shows a willingness to engage in further discussion.
2. Breakfast Clubs Early Adopter Scheme:
   • Sarah Bool (Conservative) questioned the adequacy of the funding rate for breakfast clubs, asserting that it was insufficient. Bridget Phillipson (Labour) refuted this claim directly, indicating a clear policy disagreement.
   • The Secretary of State’s criticism of the Conservative Party for not welcoming the breakfast clubs and exaggerating their impact further highlights the partisan divide.
3. Curriculum and Assessment Review:
   • Nick Timothy (Conservative) challenged Catherine McKinnell on the future of SATs, suggesting skepticism about the potential changes to the assessment system. McKinnell’s response avoided a direct ‘yes or no’, indicating some tension and disagreement about the specifics of the curriculum changes.
4. Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Funding:
   • Bob Blackman (Conservative) expressed concerns about the projected financial deficit related to SEND provision and questioned the progress of a new school in his constituency. Catherine McKinnell responded by referencing the challenges inherited from the previous government, illustrating a disagreement on historical responsibility and current actions.
   • George Freeman (Conservative) emphasized his achievements and criticized the Labour ‘party political broadcast’, showcasing a disagreement on the narrative around SEND policy improvements.
5. Institutes of Technology:
   • Neil O’Brien (Conservative) questioned the Labour government’s handling of smartphones in schools, criticizing their blockage of a proposed ban. Catherine McKinnell responded by highlighting the failures of the previous Conservative government, indicating a clear policy disagreement.
6. Multi-academy Trusts: Management Accountability:
   • Jack Rankin (Conservative) raised concerns about the accountability in multi-academy trusts and requested a system overhaul. Catherine McKinnell assured some improvements and offered a meeting to discuss further, indicating disagreement on the effectiveness and structure of current accountability systems.
7. School Building Programmes:
   • Graham Stuart (Conservative) criticized past Labour spending on school buildings, suggesting it was wasteful. Stephen Morgan (Labour) strongly refuted this claim, emphasizing current investments and dismissing lectures from the Conservatives, showing disagreement about the effectiveness of past and present expenditures.
8. Topical Questions:
   • Laura Trott (Conservative) challenged Bridget Phillipson (Labour) on spending priorities and program cuts, arguing that Labour’s priorities were misplaced. Phillipson’s responses defended Labour’s actions and redirected criticism at the previous government’s financial management, clearly highlighting a partisan disagreement.

Overall, while the session shows considerable disagreement, particularly on policy impacts, funding, and accountability, the disagreements are managed with some level of civility and willingness to engage in further discussion, leading to a moderate score on the disagreement scale.