 House of Commons | Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Education and Inspections Bill |
Education and Inspections Bill |
TheCommittee consisted of the followingMembers:Alan Sandall, CommitteeClerk † attended theCommittee StandingCommittee ETuesday 2May2006(Morning)[Mr.Christopher Chope in theChair]Education and Inspections BillClause36Generalrestriction on selection byability 10.30am Mr.David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): I beg to move amendmentNo. 441, in clause 36, page 26, line 7, at beginninginsert ‘Until the school yearstarting on or after 1st August2010,'. TheChairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss thefollowing: Amendment No. 209, in clause 36, page 26, line 7, at endinsert ‘or anacademy'. Amendment No.230, in clause 36, page 26, line 7, at endinsert ‘, academy, city technologycollege or city college for the technology of thearts.'. AmendmentNo. 210, in clause 36, page 26, line 8, leave out from ‘ability'to end of line 11 and insert ‘oraptitude unless selection is for the purpose of section 101 (permittedselection: pupil banding) of SSFA1998.'. AmendmentNo. 367, in clause 36, page 26, line 11, at endinsert ‘,or (c) the school is acomprehensive with a grammarstream.'. AmendmentNo. 442, in clause 36, page 26, line 11, at endinsert— ‘(1A) The admissionauthority for each secondary school, in exercising their functions,shall— (a) have regardto the general principle that secondary education is to be provided incomprehensive schools, and (b)determine that arrangements for the admission of pupils for compulsoryeducation is not based on any test of ability oraptitude, except where theadmission arrangements have been determined under section 101 of SSFA(pupil banding) or regulations made under section [Retention ofselection by ability or aptitude after parentballot].'. AmendmentNo. 368, in clause 36, page 26, line 13, leave out ‘orany'. Amendment No. 45,in clause 36, page 26, line 28, at endinsert ‘and (c)in subsection (4), after paragraph (b)insert— “(c) anyselection of 10 per cent of pupils by aptitude in a subject that is acompulsory target-setting subject for the purposes of the specialistschoolsprogramme.”.'. Clausestand part. New clause 8—Freedom ofselection— ‘(1) Amaintained school shall have complete freedom to select pupils byacademic or other ability at its absolutediscretion. (2) Sections 99 to103 of SSFA 1998 shall cease to have effect.'. New clause51—Retention of selection by ability or aptitude after parentballot— ‘(1) TheSecretary of State must, after consultation, by regulations,make— (a) suchsupplementary, incidental or consequential provision,or (b) such transitional,transitory or savingprovision, as he considersnecessary or expedient for the purposes of, in consequence of, or forgiving full effect to subsection(2). (2) Regulations undersubsection (1) must, in particular, make provisionto— (a) amend or repealPart 3, Chapter 2 (selection of pupils) of SSFA 1998 to provide for thelegislation to be consistent with the general principle that there mustbe a ballot of parents of pupils attending local primary schools if anysecondary school is to continue to select pupils by ability or aptitudeafter the school year starting on or after 1st August 2011,and (b) amend or revoke anysubordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act1978) made before the passing of this Act necessary to achieve theprinciple set out above. (3)Nothing in this Act is to be regarded as limiting the generality ofsubsection (1).'. Amendment No. 443, in clause158, page 108, line 12, at endinsert— ‘(aa) regulationsunder section [Retention of selection by ability or aptitude afterparentballot],'. Before speaking to theamendments, I wish to say a few words about the context of our debatesso far and our forthcoming debate on this part of the Bill, which dealswith school admissions. I hope that that will be helpful to theofficial Opposition, who on more than one occasion have questioned myviews on certainmatters. It seems to methat the way in which the official Opposition have approached the Bill,especially questions relating to admissions and the relationship withthe local authority, is not the most useful framework for increasingour understanding of how to build an education system that helps tofulfil the potential of all children. Their view is that there is adichotomy of those who believe that all our schools should be withinthe local education authority and those who believe that they shouldall be free-standing, independent schools with minimal connection withthe LEA. Furthermore, there are those who believe that there should beno LEAs at all. It is not helpful to consider the Bill in such terms.The issue is far more complex than that. Similarly, traditionally theofficial Opposition have regarded the debate on admissions as a debatebetween those who believe in selection and those who are opposed to it.They have simplified that into debate on grammar schools andcomprehensive schools, or grammar school systems. It is interesting howselective systems are always described as grammar school systems, not secondarymodern school systems, but we will leave that to one side for themoment. Mr.John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): That isa caricature of the mission of the official Opposition. We voted forthe Bill in the full understanding that it retains a role for LEAs: agood example of such a function that I value greatly is statementingspecial needs children. We would have voted against the Bill had weheld the opinion that the hon. Gentleman ascribes tous. Mr.Chaytor: I accept the hon. Gentleman’s comment,although he is, of course, in the vanguard of thinking in his party onsuch matters and I suspect that his views are not shared by the generalmass of hiscolleagues. Mrs.Nadine Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con): Could the reasonwe refer to selective systems as grammar school systems, not secondarymodern school systems, be that we still have grammar schools, but nolonger have secondary modern schools? Speaking as a secondarymodern-educated person, I do not believe that anyone in the room wouldadvocate a return to the secondary modernsystem. Mr.Chaytor: No it could not, because we still have secondarymodern schools. If the hon. Lady checks the list of categories ofschool held by the Department for Education and Skills, she will seethat it contains several secondary modern schools. Although not allnon-selective schools in wholly selective areas are defined officiallyas secondary modern schools, they have, in effect, the same status asthose schools that used to be defined assuch. Mrs.Dorries: Is it not a failure of the Government that afteralmost 10 years in power, secondary modern schools are still inexistence? Are they not operating a comprehensivesystem? Mr.Chaytor: The hon. Lady makes an important point. If shecan be patient, I shall comment further on the grammar-comprehensivedivision in the hope of clarifying the point. The way in which theDepartment classifies our schools probably bears little relationship toreality. Some schools that are classified as secondary modernschools—perhaps in Kent, Slough or Buckinghamshire—have afar more comprehensive intake than some of the schools that areofficially classified as comprehensive schools. I am glad that shepicked up on my remarks on the important question of how schools areclassified. My preference would be simply to call them“schools”, but perhaps that is an idea whose time has notyet come. It isimportant to raise the issue now, because for50 years oureducation debate has been too much hung up on the names that we giveschools. I do not believe that the concept of a grammar school is aprecise or accurate one, because some grammar schools are whollyselective state schools, some are non-selective state schools, and someare private schools that select to a greater or lesser degree byability and by the size of the parents’ chequebook. The term “grammar school”is not helpful, nor is the term “comprehensive school”,which embraces an enormous range of schools with an enormous diversityof intake. We need to get away from the traditional framework ofdivisions between selection and non-selection, and between the controland running of schools by LEAs and a system of free-standingindependentschools. Mr.Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): Is notwhat we need to get away from the ideological obsession with intake andthe assumption that the intake of a school determines its quality? Thereason for the degree of passion about school intakesis thatthere are too few good schools in thiscountry, with 23 percent. officially regarded as underperforming. Should not the priorityof all Members of Parliament be to create more good schools so thatthere is not such a clamour by parents to get their children into thefew good schools that exist? That, not admissions, should be ourobsession. Mr.Chaytor: I agree completely that our objective should beto create more good schools; paradoxically, that would make our currentobsession with choice became less relevant. If more good schools wereavailable, individual parents would be less anxious about their choiceof school, because the choice that they made would be less significantto and have less of an impact on their children’s education.However, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s view that therehas been an ideological obsession with intake; nor do I accept thatintake is irrelevant to the objective of building a system in which allschools are good schools. To continue my generalremarks—I beg your indulgence, Mr. Chope: I shall move on to thespecifics of the amendments shortly—the real issue seems to meto be not a battle between independent schools and LEA-controlledschools but the correct balance of decision making between theGovernment in Westminster, the local authority, school governors and parents. It is interesting that so much of the debate in Committee sofar has focused on the level at which decisions should be taken. Somehave said that certain matters should be determined by parents; othershave said that certain matters are for the governing body to determine.The Opposition have criticised the Government for being too centralist.The Government have argued that they want to increase parentpower. The argumenthas moved back and forth between the Government and the Opposition, andthe central theme of the Bill seems to be securing the rightdecision-making structure, getting the right decisions taken at theright level and ensuring a balance between the legitimate rights ofparents and school governing bodies and the democratic responsibilitiesof local authorities and central Government. We must therefore focusfirst on what decision-making structure would be best, and then on whatrelationship between local authorities and the schools in their areawould be best. Thehon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), with whom I have some thingsin common and many differences, has said that he deeply regrets thefactthat the Conservative Government who passed the Education Reform Act 1988 did not go the whole way and allow all schoolsto opt out. He and other members of the Committee may be interested toknow that, within weeks of the Act receiving Royal Assent, I madeprecisely that argument—albeit for different reasons from thehon. Gentleman’s—to my colleagues on the educationcommittee on which I was serving at the time. I argued that the onlyway in which we could conceivably maintain a coherent and equitablesystem following the passing of the Act, which I did not support, wasfor all schools to retain the same status: either all should stay in,or all should opt out. There was an element ofmischievousness in that argument: it would have been impossible for allschools to opt out, because the Government of the day were not preparedto allocate the funding necessary for all of them to becomegrant-maintained. Some of us thought that the way to defeat thelegislation was to highlight that anomaly as forcefully as possible,but that was not the majority view of my party or my colleagues. We allknow the history of the past 18 years: the opting-out process has ledto more inequality in the system and a greater hierarchy of schools, aswell as greater differences in funding, both capital and revenue,particularly in secondaryschools. Mr.Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): It is strange, is itnot, that the two outriders on the Committee agree on the fundamentalpoint that all schools should be treated the same, regardless offunding? The Minister may wish to note that. We do not benefit thesystem by creating types of schools that opt of the system, such ascityacademies. |
         | |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 3 May 2006 |