Education and Inspections Bill |
Jacqui Smith: I agree completely. Does the hon. Lady accept that putting such a word as “disadvantaged” in legislation brings with it considerable legal challenges in defining what is meant? Sarah Teather: I suspect that the Minister is right. I think that the terms in the clause are broad and include all children. The clause needs to be broadly drawn, but I persist with the point that it would have been helpful to include a reference to emotional well-being at the start of the Bill. As I said, we will not press the matter but will consider whether to take it forward on Report. 4.30 pmMr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): Six hours have elapsed since we began debating the amendments. Time passes so quickly on these occasions. Who would have imagined when I initiated debate with my harmless amendment, No. 96, that we were opening the Pandora’s box of discourses on human reason that has preoccupied us for the past few hours? When I left my flat this morning and was walking to the House looking forward to Committee proceedings, I knew nothing about “the third thing”. The new Conservative party—or, as it should be known from its desperate attempts to reinvent itself, the newborn Conservative party—has created an intellectual underpinning in the “third thing” concept, which will doubtless sweep through the intellectual bastions of western Europe and transform our politics in the years ahead. In tribute to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I must say that I absolutely support his attempts to transform our education system by raising standards and reducing the grotesque inequalities between high and low achievers that have always disfigured the British educational system. That gap is now closing. I have no reason whatever to doubt his commitment. From my discussions with him in the However, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s method of arguing his case by setting up a stereotype of what he believes are the weaknesses of the current system and then dismantling it. Setting up and destroying stereotypes that bear no relation to reality actually invalidates the argument that one is trying to put. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the education system as bedevilled by what he calls 1960s progressivism. What strikes me about 1960s progressivism is that most of its main tenets have been absorbed into the mainstream of our social, political and cultural life, to the great advantage of the nation. I worry when he argues his new Conservative, third thing philosophy that he is really taking us back to the early 1970s. He quotes many academics in support of his argument, but the real intellectual guru to whom he should refer is Professor Brian Cox of Manchester university, who in the early 1970s published the series of “black papers” that paved the way for Sir Keith Joseph’s attempt to restructure our education system completely. Unlike the Opposition, or at least Opposition Front Benchers—I am not sure that Back Benchers agree with them—I do not see this debate as a contrast between conservative and liberal approaches. It seems to me that the real issue in education policy today is not the distinction between progressives and reactionaries but the distinction between those who think that there is one solution to all our problems—a single way forward, be it the teaching of reading or the organisation of children in their classes—and those who believe that a multiplicity of approaches must be tried. I am of the tradition of letting a hundred flowers bloom, and I hope that the Committee can be persuaded of that approach as we move through our proceedings. Mr. Hayes: When the hon. Gentleman checks the record later, he will see that I said exactly that in my contribution. I do not take a narrow view on methodology, but there are some fundamentals in this debate, including raising expectations for and of all our children and re-establishing the primacy of the educator’s role. Those truths stand well beyond detailed debates on methodology, do they not? Mr. Chaytor: No one would disagree. The hon. Gentleman takes me to my second point in winding up, which concerns the flaw in the Opposition’s approach. We saw it to some extent in the Budget debate last night. On the one hand, they continuously reiterate that the way forward in education policy must be to increase the freedom of schools and teachers, while on the other they argue simultaneously that the way forward must be to adopt a single method of teaching reading, a single kind of curriculum content or a single way of organising children in the classroom. Column Number: 59 Mr. Gibb: The fact is that there is now a single method. The approach that I have described is prevalent in the majority of state schools in this country. It is difficult for a parent to find a school that adopts methods used in the most successful state and private schools. I want the methods that work in the most successful schools to be more prevalent throughout the system and the way in which to achieve that is to tackle the philosophy that is dominant in the overwhelming majority of schools because of the philosophy that is dominant in the educational establishment. I want a more diverse approach. At the moment, there is a homogeneous approach in education. Mr. Chaytor: I applaud the hon. Gentleman’s determination to open up a public debate about the curriculum. It is long overdue. He has done a service in pressing the point. However, his characterisation of what takes place in state schools is not one that I recognise. I did not recognise the stereotyping of many state schools as bog-standard comprehensives nor did I recognise his description of the diversity of practice within state schools as a single method of teaching dominated by the educational establishment of the 1960s. My third point concerns the relationship between learning and knowledge. It is absolutely self-evident that the acquisition of knowledge is a necessary, but not sufficient, precondition of a good quality education. The Opposition are assuming that knowledge can be separated from the application of knowledge or from the capacity to acquire further knowledge. There is a significant dividing line between the Government and the official Opposition because we believe that knowledge is not fixed or rigid. In this era of globalisation and rapid expansion of information technology that has resulted in an explosion of knowledge and an explosion in access to knowledge of which previous generations could have only dreamt, the role of the teacher needs to change dramatically. The fact is that rote learning under the instruction of a teacher is arguably far less effective than simply enabling children to acquire knowledge directly from a computer. Ms Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): Is it not the case that, for children who suffer from dyslexia and dyscalcula, it is incredibly important that we adopt a range of approaches? Rote learning is not always appropriate for children who have trouble recognising words and numbers, and decoding them. Mr. Chaytor: That is correct. It relates to the point made towards the end of the response of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton about the bottom 25 per cent. being able to decode language. It is important that children should be able to decode. He is overlooking the fact that many children in what he describes as the bottom 25 per cent. of the ability range will have specific learning disabilities that will prevent them from ever decoding in a way that most of us would find necessary for everyday life. It is not possible to make sweeping statements about particular Sarah Teather: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the type of knowledge that young people are required to learn changes from one generation to another? Merely comparing what one generation learned at one stage with another generation and saying that standards have fallen is a false comparison. As he has just described, knowledge is exploding all the time, so the knowledge that is relevant changes at each stage. Mr. Chaytor: We do not want to get into a debate about the relative merits of mediaeval history and media studies. That may be for another part of our deliberations. I agree completely. It is especially because of the dynamic society in which we live and the impact of globalisation and IT that we must recognise that the acquisition of knowledge itself is an insufficient precondition for an excellent education. An Opposition Member—I apologise for forgetting who—cited Einstein as an example of someone who could not have achieved what he did without a body of knowledge. I agree: Einstein is—or was, sadly—an excellent role model. However, I doubt that he is typical of most young people in our schools today. This set of amendments, of which my amendment No. 96 is the lead, has cast an interesting light on clause 1. Many things in the clause could be expressed differently. Disadvantage, the “Every Child Matters” agenda and the Children Act provisions are important. However, it strikes me as a remarkable contradiction that the Conservatives want to press to a Division the amendment relating to disadvantage because, ironically, when we had a similar discussion on the Education and Skills Committee’s report on the education White Paper, the Conservative members of the Committee argued precisely the opposite point. The majority of members of the Committee were trying to introduce a specific reference to the importance of dealing with disadvantage as the prime objective of policy, but the Conservative members argued against such a reference. That debate resulted in what I thought was quite a good compromise, but I still make the point. In respect of the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), I am still struggling to understand the principle on which she refuses to read Melanie Phillips. Perhaps she can tell me later, because I am desperately searching for a reason not to read Melanie Phillips. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools responded to the debate carefully, thoroughly and sensitively, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert
Column Number: 61
Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 14. [Division No. 1] AYES Clappison, Mr. JamesDorries, Mrs. Nadine Evennett, Mr. David Gibb, Mr. Nick Hayes, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Rob NOES Blackman-Woods, Dr.Roberta Cawsey, Mr. Ian Chaytor, Mr. David Creagh, Mary Hillier, Meg Hope, Phil Moffatt, Laura Morden, Jessica Mulholland, Greg Shaw, Jonathan Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough) Smith, rh. Jacqui Snelgrove, Anne Teather, Sarah Question accordingly negatived. Amendment proposed: No. 86, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert
Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 12. [Division No. 2] AYES Clappison, Mr. JamesDorries, Mrs. Nadine Evennett, Mr. David Gibb, Mr. Nick Hayes, Mr. John Mulholland, Greg Teather, Sarah Wilson, Mr. Rob NOES Blackman-Woods, Dr.Roberta Cawsey, Mr. Ian Chaytor, Mr. David Creagh, Mary Hillier, Meg Hope, Phil Moffatt, Laura Morden, Jessica Shaw, Jonathan Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough) Smith, rh. Jacqui Snelgrove, Anne Question accordingly negatived. 4.45 pmClause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 Duties in relation to diversity and choice Sarah Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, after ‘(3A)’, insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Column Number: 62 No. 161, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, after ‘schools’, insert
No. 178, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out from ‘schools’ to end of line 13 and insert—
No. 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert
No. 88, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert
No. 97, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert
No. 98, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert
Sarah Teather: Amendments Nos. 59 and 178 probe further what the Government mean by the word “choice”. Choice for whom? [Interruption.] The Chairman: Order. We are here to scrutinise the Bill line by line. Any other kind of conversation should take place outside the Committee Room. Sarah Teather: As I said, the amendments probe what the Government mean by choice. Choice for whom, about what, at what time and in what circumstances? What are the limits to choice? Should there be any limits to choice, and if so, what are they? Unlimited choice requires unlimited capacity and we do not have unlimited capacity in the system. It is important to put that on the record because local authorities will be charged with doing what is required when they exercise their powers and they need to know what the limits are when they compare one aspect with another. The Bill has come at the end of 10 years of rising school rolls but there is about to be a period of 10 years of falling school rolls. We expect schools to lose about 500,000 teenagers in the next 10 years. What should local authorities do in those circumstances? Should they leave lots of school places empty to allow more choice or diversity in the system, or should they try to work within the boundaries of efficiency and value for money? Column Number: 63 Let us suppose that a few Catholic families in a majority Muslim area want a Catholic school. What are the limits on the choice that the local authority must consider? Should it provide for the majority or the minority? It is important for the Government to be explicit about what they mean. In a rural area there may be only one local school to which a child can go. What does choice mean in those circumstances? What does diversity mean? Does it mean diversity across the whole of a local authority area or choice specifically for parents? For example, in a rural area there may be diversity of provision across a borough but a very limited choice for parents who live within the catchment area of a local school, which may be a faith school or a specialist school, if they do not want to send their child to that school and it is impractical for them to travel further. What do the Government mean when they talk about exercising choice and diversity? What is meant by choice for parents? It conflicts with aspects that we will debate later when we discuss admissions. When more choice is provided in the system and schools control their own admissions process, we will end up with schools choosing children rather than the other way round. Choice probably means preference. Perhaps the Minister will be more explicit about that; it would be more honest if we used that word. We may talk about choice, but the Bill refers only to choice at 11. Choice should be extended through the system and it is why we have referred to choice and diversity within schools. Choice should apply to young people as they are trying to decide what kind of curriculum they want to follow. Mr. Gibb: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s remarks. Do I understand it that the Liberal position is that they are in favour of the surplus places rule? Sarah Teather: I am not sure that I understand the question. Would the hon. Gentleman clarify it? Mr. Gibb: I am sorry. Are the Liberals in favour of the surplus places rule that no school is allowed to expand if there are surplus places in the local education authority area? Jacqui Smith: As it does not exist, she should not be in favour. Mr. Gibb: The Minister says from a sedentary position that the rule does not exist, but the Prime Minister certainly referred to it. Whether it exists or not, it is preventing many good schools from expanding, because there are surplus places in the area. The hon. Member for Brent, East seems to be implying that while there are surplus places in a local education authority area, good schools will not be able to expand and new schools cannot be established. Sarah Teather: No; I am trying to get some clarification about the limits on choice. My questions are directed at the Government and the Minister. They put “choice” into the Bill. I want to know what the limits on choice are and what the Government mean I return to the point about choice in the curriculum and in schools. We were extremely disappointed that the Government did not use this opportunity to implement the reforms proposed in the Tomlinson report. I know that we will discuss entitlements to diplomas later when we debate clauses 61 and 62, but the Bill does not implement the whole of the reforms recommended by Tomlinson, which have been recommended by advisers for at least a decade, including in Labour party reports. It does not break down the two-tier system. We have tried to introduce the notion of choice in the curriculum to lay the groundwork for discussions that we would like to have later. We have included colleges because if there is to be choice in the curriculum, young people need to be able to move between schools and colleges, which requires a fundamentally collaborative model. We have proposed amendments to later clauses to ensure that that collaboration takes place. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton poured scorn on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PISA report, which was rather unfair. The OECD found that educational systems that enable choice of provision within schools rather than between them—I do not think that it is necessarily an either/or choice—are far more likely to meet the needs of all young people rather than some young people. That is why we have added those points to the amendment. I return to my initial point about the limits of choice. Will the Government be clear about what the limits are? Do they mean value for money? The Audit Commission reported in “Trading Places” that large numbers of unfilled places are a substantial waste of public money. Will the Government be explicit about what they want local authorities to consider when deciding the extent to which they want to provide choice and diversity within the system? Mr. Hayes: The Liberal Democrat amendments show that they do not really have a clear understanding of the fundamental purpose of the Bill. No doubt the Minister will enlighten us of that in the coming hours, days and weeks, but I understand it to be to extend the capacity of schools to exercise certain freedoms. The Government believe, as, I think, do the Opposition, that that will help to drive up standards in education to the benefit of our children. There are debates about the precise nature of those freedoms and the continuing role of local education authorities, and there are debates, which we have heard at length today, regarding the pedagogy that would help to improve the quality of education provided in schools. But the essence of the Government’s position is that the greater freedoms enjoyed by schools are likely to be beneficial. The other aspect of the Bill that seems to be central to its purpose is the notion that with that greater diversity should come greater choice, which could be exercised by parents in pursuing their children’s I therefore have some sympathy with the case made by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), arguing that choice needs to be explained and, in some circumstances, qualified. However, central to the Bill is the idea that the extension of choice, the extension of freedom for schools to innovate, and the resultant diversity is likely to have a beneficial effect on standards. If the hon. Lady does not believe that, and from her amendments she does not seem to—because she was straightforward enough to question the basis on which the Bill is predicated—she takes a different view from the emerging consensus on educational matters, as it was described so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. The understanding of the importance of diversity, greater school freedom and choice is a lesson that the Conservatives learned a long time ago. Grudgingly and falteringly, our Government friends have come to similar conclusions—I say that without meaning to be patronising. The Liberals have always been some way behind in politics. I was reminded of that earlier by the hon. Member for Brent, East when she opposed our crusade for disadvantaged people. I was reminded of the antecedents of the Liberal party: people who opposed every 19th century reform introduced by Tories; who defended the slavers and those who put boys up chimneys and women and girls down mines. The Liberals drag their history behind them like a millstone. One understands that they are captives of that history. They are slow to catch up with the mood of the times, and that is well illustrated by their amendments. To return for inspiration to the words of the Prime Minister, he spoke of the Government’s intentions towards education and illustrated his Pauline conversion to the Tory perspective on those matters on 12 December 2005 at the City of London academy. He said:
The hon. Lady is right that, in practical terms, choice cannot be unlimited. However, as the Prime Minister said, Column Number: 66
Choice is a means of shaping the way the system works; choice is a vehicle for something greater. When I make a case against choice as an absolute, I do so on the basis that choice is only ever a means to a greater end. The hon. Lady seems not even to recognise it as such. |
          | |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 29 March 2006 |