NEWS FOCUS SecEd: On Your Side


Asbestos in schools – our biggest shame


StudieS have estimated that around 75 per cent of uK schools contain some form of asbestos and the fact that no serious attempt has been made to remove these materials is indeed a national scandal, as a cross-party group of MPs said this week (see news pages). it is a scandal that successive governments have done nothing to rectify. in fact, while the government accepts that around 75 per


cent of schools contain asbestos, it doesn’t really know the true picture because it has carried out no thorough audit. We should be ashamed that teachers continue to die from


the asbestos-related diseases and that children continue to be exposed and put at risk as well. We should also be ashamed that we are unwilling to spend the money required to ensure that all asbestos is removed from schools. Of the schools that contain the material, many have the


very dangerous amosite (brown asbestos) and many have the materials in locations that are vulnerable to damage by students. if managed badly or disturbed in any notable way, these asbestos-containing materials can release fibres, which if inhaled by school staff or children could lead to the cancer mesothelioma. the government’s tired response to any enquiry about


asbestos in schools is that the policy in place is one of management – schools must ensure that they know where the asbestos is and that it is managed and monitored. You will often see a department for education


spokesman quoted as saying something like: “it is unacceptable for schools not to comply with the statutory guidance for asbestos management – no ifs or buts.” this quote is reeled out everytime they are asked about


this vital issue. it was used this week in various media and has been sent to SecEd more than once in the past as well. this tired response is unacceptable. the problem is that


“management” concentrates on preventing maintenance work disturbing asbestos. But asbestos is commonly found in partition walls, window surrounds, lagging and ceiling panels and tests have shown that common everyday classroom activities such as the slamming of a door can release dangerous levels of fibres. Furthermore, schools are under no obligation to inform


teachers and parents about the location and condition of asbestos. Quite often it can be like getting blood from a stone for teachers who want to know if their classroom walls or ceilings contain the material. it is also the truth that governments have simply been


unwilling to spend the money that would be needed to remove all asbestos from schools. another common quote from the dfe, also seen this


week, reads something like: “if asbestos is not disturbed or damaged then it is safer to leave it in situ with systems in place to contain and monitor it.” For “safer”, you should read “cheaper”. it is as simple and cold-hearted as that. also, a key problem with mesothelioma is that it can


take years to present in victims and when people die of the disease, the subsequent inquests do not really consider whether their schools contained asbestos materials. as such, we know about the increasing numbers of


teachers who are dying, but what we do not know is how many children are being exposed at school and then suffering in later life – and what is disturbing is that no government seems interested in finding out. in the 1980s, three teachers a year were recorded as


dying from asbestos-related disease. Now, 16 a year die. it follows that many more children will be affected. indeed, anamercian study has estimated that for every teacher who dies of asbestos-related illness, nine children will also die. Last year, a landmark judgement was delivered in the


Supreme Court when it upheld that dianne Willmore, who died from mesothelioma in 2009, had been negligently exposed to asbestos while a pupil at her secondary school in the 1970s. this case also acknowledged that there is no level of exposure to asbestos fibres below which there isn’t a risk. the dfe this week told SecEd: “the health and welfare


of pupils and staff is absolutely paramount and should never be jeopardised.” Well, it is in jeopardy and for no other reason than because politicians are unwilling to foot the bill of complete asbestos removal from our schools. SecEd


• Pete Henshaw is the editor of Seced. Email him on editor@sec-ed.co.uk or follow him on Twitter @pwhenshaw.


the eduCatiON secretary clashed with MPs during a colourful two and half hours last week as he appeared before the education Select Committee. headlines were made as he


labelled opponents to his academy movement as “trots”. he also set out his views on the pupil premium and his plans for yet more measures to be included within the school performance tables. the


education Select


Committee is a cross-party group of MPs that scrutinises government policy and reports back on their findings, recommending changes to the system or highlighting any flaws. here is a round-up of some of the key discussions from the hearing.


Academies


during the session, Mr Gove once again attacked those opposed to academy schools, this time calling them “trots”. it comes after he labelled his opponents as “enemies of promise” in a speech in January. Mr Gove confirmed to the


MPs that he still expects more than half of secondary schools to be academies by the end of this Parliament (probably in 2015). the secretary of state accused


the campaign to prevent the forced conversion of downhills Primary in north London of being linked to the Socialist Workers Party and the anti-academiesalliance. Mr Gove said: “(it’s) a campaign


led by theanti-academiesalliance, a Socialist Workers Party-backed campaign, an Nut official who operates at taxpayers’ expense – representatives of all the enemies of promise. it’s a pity that the Labour Party hasn’t spoken out against this ‘trot’ campaign.” this was to set the scene for


the morning hearing, with Labour members of the committee, including Pat Glass and ian Mearns clashing with Mr Gove over academies. his comments also sparked


anger from thedownhills campaign group itself, which tweeted during the hearing: “We are parents, listen to us!” after the hearing, Chris Keates,


general secretary of the NaSuWt union (which has campaigned against a number of academy conversions) slammed the secretary of state for his arrogance. Ms Keates added: “Regrettably


this comment exemplifies the combination of arrogance and ignorance which drives the coalition’s education policy. “it is unacceptable for the


6


genuine concerns of parents, local communities and the workforce to be dismissed and derided in this way.”


Accountability


the hearing came within days of the publication of the secondary school league tables and Mr Gove used the occasion to confirm that he is hoping to introduce more measures in the coming years. this year’s tables saw new


measures based on the progress pupils make between when they leave primary and their GCSes. in total, they included more than 400 pieces of information about each school. however, Mr Gove described a


new “destination measure” that he wants included into the tables by the end of this Parliament. he said he wanted schools to be


judged on where students go on to after they leave. this could include the number of students who go on to university, the institutions they attend, or whether they become Neets (people not in education, employment or training). he also dismissed criticism


from chairman of the committee, Conservative Graham Stuart, that the government’s raft of performance measures is driving schools to focus on students around the C-grade boundary. Mr Stuart said: “if you create


the framework, you create the incentive – don’t blame the people in the system if they follow the incentives.” however, Mr Gove hit back


claiming it is an “unexamined hypothesis that i would contest – that there are children who can’t gain five a* to C including in english and maths. Show me these children”. he continued: “it is unacceptable


that we should write children off at any stage and say that they cannot secure a C-pass in english or maths or other GCSes. are we saying that after 11 years in compulsory state education we should accept – as we are unfortunately having to live with at the moment – that


children are leaving school illiterate and innumerate.” he went on to say that england


is “almost uniquely scarred by the fact that children from poorer backgrounds do less well”. the minister also told MPs that


he is in favour of intervening in schools that are underperforming and that he is right to “tackle gaming” in the league tables by stripping out hundreds of vocational qualifications. he also defended his


controversial idea to dramatically increase the floor standards for schools. Currently the floor standard is 35 per cent of students gaining the five a* to C benchmark, including english and maths. however, this will rise to 50 per cent by the end of this Parliament. he added: “i’m in favour of


floor standards, and i’m in favour of intervening where schools are under performing, but i also think it’s right to say we want to tackle gaming and make sure we tackle perverse incentives in the system. “Let’s not presume that the


behaviour of all teachers and headteachers is driven only by external accountability factors. Good and great teachers and headteachers are driven by a sense of moral purpose and that applies to the majority. Where there are problems we can intervene and sort it out.”


Pupil premium


MPs quizzed Mr Gove on the introduction of the pupil premium and what impact the fund is having in schools. From last September, the pupil


premium funding was allocated for pupils eligible for free school meals, although the government hopes to extend the premium by the end of 2012/13 so it also goes to students who were formerly on free school meals. the scheme states that the extra


cash should be used by schools to increase social mobility and aspirations for these students, while reducing the attainment gap. initially, the amount for each pupil


Last week, education minister Michael Gove was quizzed by MPs for more than two hours over his policies and


performance since taking office. Daniel White was there


is £488 but this could rise to as much as £1,750 by 2014/15. however, Mr Gove said


that although the cash has been distributed into the system, there is no evidence yet of its impact. he told the MPs: “We have


put in a significant sum of public money. it has been welcomed by the majority of headteachers and there are new accountability measures that show how it is performing in every school. We haven’t had enough time (to see an impact) yet because it has only just started arriving in schools.”


Private email use


Following the allegations over use of private emails last year by Mr Gove and some of his advisors, the minister admitted to MPs that he has still not complied with subsequent guidance from the information Commissioner. the education secretary and


some of his close advisors had been accused of using private email accounts for government matters. the Financial Times claimed


that the department for education (dfe) would not hand over information under Freedom of information requests because private email accounts had been used. the dfe said the emails related to Conservative Party business, not government matters. information Commissioner


Christopher Graham advised last year that the use of private emails by those within the dfe should be “actively discouraged”. however, Mr Gove told MPs


that he is still waiting for fresh advice from the Civil Service before complying. Labour MP Lisa Nandy


subjected Mr Gove to some fierce questioning, asking him numerous times if he had ever “used private email accounts in order to conceal information from civil servants or the public”. Mr Gove replied: “i have always


followed the advice that the Cabinet Office laid down on Freedom of information. Sometimes i have sent emails on my private account to my wife about whether or not we might go to the theatre. i would have thought that that would have been something that, while the Civil Service or the public might have been interested, wouldn’t necessarily have been appropriate to share. “there are many different


interpretations of how the Freedom of informationact might apply, and i have always followed the advice from the Cabinet Office.”


SecEd SecEd • February 9 2012


www.sec-ed.com


Gove grilled


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16