|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is the noble Baroness saying that the Minister in another place has said that, for example, in my own village, which has a three-class school, for the 31st child in the infant/junior age-range class the school will receive another teacher for one child?
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, my noble friend has said that funds will be available to appoint additional teachers so that no child shall be in a class of more than 30. That does not necessarily mean that it will be 30 and one child. There may be other divisions. The important point is that that commitment has been given by the Government and funding will be made available to ensure that the promise is fulfilled.
On the broader issue of parental choice, it is often a matter of perceptions about schools. If a selective grammar school is in the area, it has been the perception in the past that that must be a better school. I am glad that that will now no longer be true because selection by ability is to be abolished by the Bill. I believe that that is a very important reform.
There are many aspects of the Bill which time does not permit us to comment on. We must wait until later stages of the Bill to examine in some detail the underlying principles of the various provisions. But I underline that this is an important Bill. It is an important step forward in improving standards and I hope that it will meet the expectations of parents who well deserve to have those expectations met.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it would be presumptuous for someone who is such a new Member of your Lordships' House to say more about the two excellent maiden speeches that we have heard than that I enjoyed them as much as any of your Lordships, and that was a very great deal indeed.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that this is an important Bill. It is an enormous Bill. Nevertheless, it still leaves a huge amount to be revealed in the form of regulations which will, sooner or later, be vouchsafed to us. Somebody like myself can focus only upon one aspect in a Second Reading speech. I have very little difficulty in choosing that aspect. I wish to concentrate upon the effect which this Bill has upon grammar schools and grant-maintained schools.
My noble friend Lady Young spoke of the importance of dealing with the reality of matters on the ground. I trouble your Lordships this evening only because I come from the county of Kent. That is a county finer in its cricketing prowess and tradition than Yorkshire. We have another claim to distinction. In 1973, we were successful in defeating the best--or more accurately the worst--efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who was then Secretary of State for Education. She sought to outlaw grammar schools. We hung on to our grammar schools because we had a very vigorous Conservative education authority in Maidstone. In 1974, we were left with them and we now have some 23 left in the county, of which four were in my former constituency, which I had the honour to represent for 23 years.
Those grammar schools in my constituency and, indeed, throughout the whole county, are excellent. They are supported passionately, and not only by those who have benefited or expect to benefit from them but much more widely. We have 88 grant-maintained schools, of which 59 are secondary schools.
Yet the effect of the Bill is to provide for the ultimate demise, or at least to facilitate the ultimate demise, of the grammar schools and to signal the imminent demise of the grant-maintained schools. I believe that that is deeply misguided and will not enhance the standards of eduction or the teaching structures of our country.
I say that as someone who has always sympathised with the argument that through creaming off the best you affect prejudicially those non-selective schools which are left with the remainder. I have always had sympathy with that argument. If I were a teacher in a non-selective secondary school, I should have been tempted at least to feel disappointed by that and perhaps even bitter. But, after thinking about the matter a good deal, I have reached the conclusion that the force of that argument is not nearly so great in terms of overall educational policy for our country as is generally claimed for it by its proponents.
I should like to detain the House a little by resorting to a local illustration. It is local in the sense that it is local to my former constituency and to my home. The small town of Cranbrook in the Weald of Kent has two maintained secondary schools--one at each end of the town. Cranbrook School is a selective grammar school and Angley School is a non-selective school, except for the fact that 15 per cent. of its vacancies at year seven are now selectively offered.
I am no expert on the matter. That is why I am slightly diffident about appearing so high on today's list of speakers. Indeed, I have been placed too soon after distinguished experts. However, as a friend and a neighbour of both those schools, I can see that the excellence of teaching at Cranbrook School--a selective grammar school--is now matched by the excellence of teaching at Angley School. I say "now matched" because, since Angley became grant maintained in 1992, it has formed its sixth form, it now sends its children to universities and it has just had what can only be described as an outstandingly successful report from Ofsted.
Indeed, Ofsted found that 95 per cent. of Angley's lessons are more than satisfactory or satisfactory which, as I understand it, is much higher than the average. Moreover, its GCSE success rates are rising and at a rate which is significantly higher than the national average. The report also says that parents' pride in the school is well justified by the facts and that a rigorous culture of competition developing pupils' full potential is well established. The truth of the matter is that those two schools now co-exist and compete quite happily together, without, I believe, resentment or jealousy.
None of those things happened until Angley became grant maintained. They did not happen when the school was wholly under the control of the authority at County Hall, enlightened though that authority was. They happened because inspiring leadership at head teacher level--and it must be said at governor level--has been allowed its head, and given its chance. It seems to me that the Bill puts that freedom and independence immediately and dangerously at risk.
It is easy to see who has benefited from that change. Those who have benefited are, first and foremost, the children of Cranbrook and those in the surrounding villages in its catchment area. I even venture to suggest that Cranbrook School has benefited from the competition, which is now increasing, from its neighbour at the other end of the town. However, I have a question for the Minister who is to reply to the debate; namely, if those are the people who have benefited, who has suffered from this co-existence of different schools?
Our nearest maintained school is eight miles away in one direction. It just happens to be a grant-maintained school. Indeed, in another direction, and also eight miles away, there happens to be a grant-maintained school; and, in a third direction, there is yet another grant-maintained school which is also about eight miles away. They are all doing very well. They cannot be said to have suffered. I ask the representative of the Government who wish to make this change: who has suffered in that instance? What is the justification for the proposed changes?
I realise that it may seem churlish to deal with an enormous and undoubtedly well-intentioned Bill by focusing upon one sector with which I strongly disagree. However, that is all that is open to one in these circumstances. In their search for higher educational standards in the context that I have identified, I regret to say that the Government have shown neither aptitude nor, if they wish to take refuge in a hitherto undefined distinction, have they shown ability.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, before I begin my speech, I must apologise to the Minister for inadvertently missing part of her introductory remarks. I am really sorry for having been discourteous to her in that respect. Like other speakers, I should like to express my pleasure at hearing two wonderful maiden speeches. They were not perhaps controversial, but no one could accuse those maiden speakers of not being trenchant.
I am tempted to tangle with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who never holds back from being controversial when she feels strongly about something. However, I shall try to be brief because, rather like the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, I feel that I have been placed far too high on the speakers' list today, full as it is of experts. Therefore, I shall do as my noble friend indicated when giving a general welcome to the Bill: I shall concentrate on the effect of the Bill on education for pupils with special educational needs. I should like to make it clear that the term "special needs" covers a very wide range of problems affecting children. But what I am about to say refers mainly to those students who, for whatever reason, are likely to be low achievers, including those with learning difficulties. Indeed, when I look at the list of speakers, I see that there are other noble Lords who will probably address their remarks to some of the problems of these children.
The whole tenor of the Bill is claimed to be improving standards and measuring performance. But that immediately causes some concern to the parents of children with special needs. There is often a very real difficulty in measuring the progress of those special needs children who progress more slowly, and not so far, as children with average or above-average capabilities. Yet almost all can make some progress. The academic or vocational achievements which demonstrate that progress are of great importance to less
Surely it must be the duty of schools and local education authorities to encourage the progress of less able students and those with learning difficulties, just as much as that of their more able contemporaries. Yet, in much of this Bill, there is little specific mention of the needs of the less able and little written provision for consulting the relevant voluntary organisations and groups which represent their interests.
Can the Minister reassure the House that the definition of "children" in Clause 6 of the Bill, which deals with education development plans and which, like many people, I believe is one of the most important clauses in the legislation, specifically includes children with special educational needs? Further, would it be the expectation of the Government that the LEAs should consult special educational needs groups under subsection (6)(c) of that clause?
A more specific worry is associated with the proposal to allow some special schools to have foundation status, particularly as it seems to differ from the Government's recent expressions of intent. The fear has been expressed that as the funds for foundation schools may be top-sliced from the total funding available, special schools which do not have foundation status, and indeed services for children with special needs in mainstream schools, may be relatively less well funded. The Minister in her opening speech reminded us that foundation schools are to be equally funded with others. Can she reassure us that the top-slicing effect will be nullified as a result?
In general, funding for pupils with special needs has become a contentious matter in recent years. Have the Government any specific proposals in the context of this Bill, or of the recent Budget, for better funding directed particularly towards special needs pupils?
I now turn to the thorny matter of admission and exclusion policies. With ever-increasing pressure on schools to achieve academic excellence, the danger has increased of schools using their admissions policies to exclude children of lower ability. Circular 6/96, which encouraged selection of up to 15 per cent. of pupils on general ability, added to these pressures. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, that selection by aptitude is difficult to distinguish from selection by ability. I am worried about the effect of either provision on the children I am discussing.
Although, in theory, it is unacceptable for schools to reject pupils because they have special needs, nevertheless there is anecdotal evidence that parents may be deliberately persuaded that certain schools would be "more suitable for your child" than others. Will the code of practice on admissions respond to the worries of concerned parents of children with special needs? It is obvious that problems with admissions are linked to difficulties with exclusions. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred to that matter. Here, again, there is evidence that children with special needs, and particularly those with emotional or behavioural difficulties, are being excluded more frequently. While
I am sure I do not need to emphasise in your Lordships' House the problems which may face such children if they are permanently excluded from mainstream schools, and the danger that vulnerable young people may drift into delinquency. Indeed, the matter touches closely on the policies of the Government to reduce social exclusion. In the Committee stage of the Bill in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ms Estelle Morris, responded to the concerns of several members of the Standing Committee on this matter by referring to the work of the recently established social exclusion unit which she said is expected to further the Government's policy in this area. She indicated that further proposals on exclusions in general might follow the report of the social exclusion unit. Can the Minister give us any indication of how Government thinking on this matter is moving?
In conclusion, I do not wish to suggest that there are no good things in this Bill from the point of view of pupils with special needs. To take one example, the proposals for financial delegation offer the opportunity both for local schools to manage the special needs budget and for increased transparency about the amount delegated to schools and how it is spent. We shall listen carefully to what the Minister says in answer to the points that I have raised, and no doubt other noble Lords, will raise. We may raise further points in correspondence and, if necessary, we shall produce proposals at a later stage or assist others in doing so.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, this is the most complex Bill it has ever been my duty to read. In many clauses there is reference to regulations to be set by the Secretary of State, so that one does not know what the final effect of these clauses will be. It is therefore extremely difficult to comment intelligently on the Bill. What effect will that have as regards transparency for the public who have to work with the subsequent legislation?
There are many intentions of this Bill which seem good--for example, the reduction in infant school class sizes. However, I would not have achieved that by phasing out assisted places which I believe have helped many children from poor families to succeed. I refer also to LEA responsibility for promoting high standards of education; the governors' and head teachers' responsibility for promoting good discipline; the responsibility for collective worship and good religious education; the provision for home/school agreements with parents; widening opportunities for pupils to undertake work experience, or to take part in further education, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned in his excellent maiden speech. I refer to the expansion of nursery education; the continuation of local
As a former chairman of a large local education authority and a governor with many years' experience of LEA schools and colleges, I felt that many of those things were already happening without the need for incorporation in a new Bill. With all these new regulations and the need for regular reports to the Department for Education and Employment, it seems to me that this Bill is a recipe for increased bureaucracy, and that at a time when all those involved in the education service have been saying, "We have had enough change. Leave us alone to make it work to the benefit of the children, and please reduce bureaucracy so that we spend less time filling in forms and more time attending to the provision of good teaching". This Bill does not seem to respond to any of those pleas.
At this point I wish to point to a gap in the provisions for governors of primary schools. In the past parish councils have nominated governors of those schools. Perhaps I should declare an interest as president of the Essex Association of Local Councils. I believe that parish councils are a good indicator of local opinion. Most people know one of their parish councillors personally and can take their troubles to him or her. I hope that the Government will reinstate the position of parish councillors as governors of primary schools.
I am very sorry indeed that grant-maintained schools are to be abolished. In my experience, they have been a great success locally, with governors responsibly improving facilities for the pupils of their schools. Only recently I opened a new science laboratory at a local comprehensive school, which I believe would have been very much more difficult to finance under the old LEA rules. I hope that as much freedom as possible will be given to foundation school governors, and indeed to all school governors, to spend their money in the way that the school needs most.
As might be imagined, I very much regret that the question of the existence of grammar schools has again been raised. They exist to stretch very able pupils, and their staffs have that particular matching expertise so that, in my experience, they are very successful. In Essex, where I was some years ago chairman of the education committee, we made the 11-plus voluntary, so no child need take it whose parents do not desire it. Many parents prefer that all their children go to the same comprehensive school, so that only about 5 per cent. from among the top 10 per cent. go to the selective schools in Essex. That means that 95 per cent. of those at LEA schools go to the comprehensives, which can really deal with all abilities. Many today pursue a policy of setting by subjects in the older years, so they, too, see their pupils succeed in many different ways. It seems to me a great pity that this sense of insecurity should again be raised for grammar schools, where excellent standards--which the Government say they wish to encourage universally--are already in action.
The impact of local ballots is difficult to assess before detailed regulations are available, but I understand that schools are not to be allowed to defend themselves publicly when they are the very ones who know most about the arguments in favour of their existence. If a ballot succeeds, out they go, with no appeal, whereas, if it does not succeed, the whole question can be raised again in five years' time. Once again, the attention of the staff of the school will be diverted from teaching their pupils to concern about the school's very future existence.
I like the Bill's reference to parental preference, which I believe is a vital ingredient of a school's success, and I am glad that the Minister emphasised its importance today. I also like the subsequent right of appeal. If parents gain admission for their children to the school of their choice, they will work with the staff of the school for the future successful development of their children. Staff and parents will have shared aims. However, flexibility must be exercised in admission procedures, as my noble friend Lady Blatch emphasised, to allow that to happen wherever possible and also to allow whole families to go to the same school where the parents wish that to happen. These kinds of arrangements engender mutual trust and loyalty, which is fundamental to good, broad education for pupils. For the same reason, I am strongly in favour of the home/school agreements in the Bill, laying down the school's aims and values and the shared responsibilities
It is said that the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions. Perhaps the Government's intentions in formulating the Bill were good. Much of it is worthwhile, but too much is difficult to understand, is overburdened with regulations and will take teachers' attention away from the education of their pupils, surely their most important task. Where does that lead, in view of the construction of this Bill?
Lord Peston: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming so much that is in the Bill. There is the commitment to reduce class sizes coupled with providing the requisite funds; there is the commitment to high standards and the placing of a specific duty on LEAs to promote them. More generally, the LEAs are given a bigger role to play--perhaps not as much as they had two decades ago, and different in kind, but highly welcome nonetheless. In that regard, I join with other noble Lords in saying that a statutorily based education development plan is much to be welcomed. I must add, however, that the current obsession with statistical data is mystifying. Clearly we must measure where we can. However, much, if not most, of what we value in education can be observed but not measured. Equally, performance can be adapted to achieving what can be measured in schools--notably tests and exam results--without doing anything of great educative value. I know that my noble friend is on record as agreeing with that. It would be excellent if she could make the point to Ofsted.
I, for one, continue to see local authorities as centres of democratic legitimacy--no less so than is the House of Commons. In that connection, although I can see the case for them, I hope my noble friend can reassure your Lordships that education action zones will not weaken democratic accountability. I must add that the history of this century shows that local education authorities have been the originators of the best new developments in schools in the same way that central government, and nowadays Ofsted, have not. I agree that we must ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to deal with so-called failing governing bodies and LEAs. But we should not be starry-eyed about the efficacy of central intervention in all cases. Since an important point of departure in the Bill is the monitoring of how well schools and LEAs are doing, it is a pity that it contains no similar provision with regard to Ofsted.
I understand that the Government want school governing bodies and LEAs to have a collaborative relationship. As I read it, that is not in the Bill itself, and it is not obvious that it will have a statutory underpinning. I hope, therefore, that we are not inventing a recipe for conflict here. More generally, we must examine in detail in Committee the composition of governing bodies and their mode of behaviour, not least the role of parents. We must look particularly at Clause 9 and the role of parents on LEAs and their relationship to parents in general.
Another problem which the Government are to be congratulated on facing is that of admissions. There is a sense in which the problem of admissions is insoluble and all we can achieve is the best of a bad job. Complete freedom of choice, certainly in the short run, is not compatible with no overcrowding. Some choices, such as restricting the distance a child has to travel, may not be possible at all. Other choices to do with desired subjects to be taught can be met only at great cost. We have wrestled with these problems for years--the previous government had to do so too--and although we must spend more time on them in Committee I doubt that we shall make much progress. What I will say in anticipation of my later remarks is that neither schools nor LEAs must be able to use admission policies as a form of covert selection.
I welcome the introduction of a code of practice and an adjudicator. Above all, each locality needs a rational admissions structure largely set by the LEA and not undermined by foundation and voluntary schools.
There are two areas fraught with difficulty which I am glad to see Ministers have not shirked. One is discipline. Power and responsibility are placed where they should be--with the governors and the head, but with a back-up lying with the LEA in the case of maintained schools. I am not sure I fully understand the new categories of school, but I am interested to know whether there are schools for which no back-up powers will exist. I am also unclear whether there are schools to which the clauses on exclusions do not apply. My general view is one with which I hope we can all agree. There can be no education without discipline and while the teacher will wish to do his or her best for all pupils there comes a point when disruption is so damaging to the interests of most pupils that exclusion, though regrettable, becomes necessary.
Another difficult subject is religion. Again, the Bill does what it can to please the various interests. I do not see it as threatening the interests of religion. It may offend the rest of us, but we are able to bear compulsory religion for the non-religious with a degree of tolerance. I, for one, have never had any difficulty with the view that all children should have read the Bible and be acquainted with the best hymns. The problem of collective worship in a school where none of the teachers is a believer remains, but again it always will.
I refer to the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I speak as an example of what used to be called old Labour but is now called Labour Gold. The noble Baroness and I joined your Lordships' House at
I turn to the subject of comprehensive schools. It is not a phrase, I might say, which looms large in the Bill. I think that I have read through the whole Bill once and I do not recall the phrase "comprehensive school" appearing anywhere. The Minister's officials may have the Bill on disk. Perhaps she will ask them to do a proper search. I shall try again. A grammar school is defined, but not a comprehensive school. Perhaps in due course we should rectify that omission. It was the policy of the Conservative government to give schools an increase in the power to select by ability or aptitude. We in opposition were against that. I remain opposed. I hope that I am right that the Bill brings to an end immediately so-called partial selection by ability. Perhaps my noble friend will reassure me.
On the distinction between aptitude and ability, again I can only echo what has already been said. Both seem to involve selection. The former seems acceptable to Ministers; the latter not. As far as I can make out, one is to do with something specific and with potential; the other with something general and actual. Perhaps I may quote the Minister in another place who stated at col. 648 of the Official Report,
What the Minister has to answer is how the Bill strengthens comprehensive schools. On the face of it, it makes life more difficult for them, not less. How, in particular, will it be ensured that the permitted forms of selection are not social class based? Who is responsible for monitoring all that, and how will they proceed? What about enforcement? I know about the code of practice, but that is not the same thing. Again, can my noble friend set out the statutory basis.
I am aware of past and present ministerial statements on the grammar schools. My right honourable and honourable friends now appear to have settled on a position that grammar schools based on selection by ability can continue if that is the wish of the majority of parents who are affected. Such a view is very far from the expressed policy of the Labour Party throughout most of its modern history. But policy can evolve. I cannot refrain, however, from anticipating what the
There is no need to go into the details of how the wishes of parents will be decided, who are the relevant parents, how the voting procedures will be initiated, what resources will be required, and so on, except to say that it looks as though it will be a bureaucratic nightmare. However, I find it paradoxical that noble Lords opposite refer to the ballots as being rigged. As I read it, it will be practically impossible for anyone to get a grammar school abolished on the basis of the way in which the Bill is set out. We must look at all these questions in Committee, especially since much will be provided by regulation. If your Lordships do not consider those matters in Committee, we shall not have a chance to become involved.
My noble friend and other noble Lords will be aware of my wife's, and my, lifetime commitment to comprehensive education. I hasten to add that our commitment is no more than that of my noble friend the Minister. But I do not wish to conclude on a critical note. I congratulate the Government on two other matters. They are right to have given priority to nursery education and to have found the funds so that for four year-olds, if their parents so wish, a place of good quality will be provided. I do not see that as incompatible with meeting the pledge on class sizes.
Lastly, we have the triumph of the abolition of corporal punishment in all schools, a debate led in this House by my noble friend Lady David. We have waited a long time for that: eventually what is right will always win.
The education Bills coming before your Lordships' House get longer and longer without becoming less frequent. I should have thought by now that this dismal sequence would have given Ministers for Education some pause for reflection, if indeed they ever have time to think, as to whether the centralising policy which has been pursued over the past 10 years and which is intensified by the Bill is the right way to achieve better schools.
My noble friend Lady Blatch dealt most ably with the many objectionable features of this Bill. I intend to concentrate on Chapter III, the education action zones. I have every reason to support them, since I argued ardently for them, without success, in the past. I called them education enterprise zones, which hark back to the successful economic initiative taken by the first Thatcher Government. My idea was that the lowest performing schools in deprived areas could be leased out to educational trusts freed from detailed regulation. The advantages I saw were to target efforts at improvement on the schools which most needed it, but above all to create models of success which could become beacons for failing schools elsewhere. Freedom to innovate was the key advantage I saw of establishing those kind of areas.
Interestingly enough, the then leader of the Opposition seemed to be thinking along similar lines. In a speech at Ruskin College on 16th December 1996 he suggested that successful schools might take over failing schools. I would not have put it quite like that, but there was a germ of a good idea there which might easily have been fitted into the framework of education action zones as I envisaged them. But this subversive idea has been kicked into touch--certainly there is no trace of it in this Bill.
What we have here is what I have come to expect from the Department for Education--a good initiative strangled at birth by red tape. To start with, the curious definition of a zone: a zone is defined not as a geographic area, which is what most of us would expect, but as a collective of schools of up to 20. That puts paid straight away to the idea of leasing out or trying to turn round individual schools. Each zone, thus defined as a collective, is to be managed by an education action forum, an extra bureaucratic layer made up of local worthies, which will receive £750,000 from the Government. The forums are to be graciously allowed to apply to the Secretary of State to vary national curriculum requirements, teaching contracts and staff salaries, but that is not an automatic condition of setting up a zone.
Then we turn to the tendering process, which is a nightmare. All proposers have to provide detailed information on their strategies for improving the educational performance of the zone. All individual schools have to agree to become part of the zone. Proposers have to demonstrate that they have audited the strengths and weakness of each individual school in the zone before they can make a bid. They have to put forward an action plan linked to the LEA's education development plan. They have to provide financial statements of a detailed kind, and so it goes on.
Some of those requirements are reasonable enough, I do not dispute that, but cumulatively the whole set up represents a massive barrier to entry except for one body: the local education authority. Education action zones are explicitly intended to raise standards in areas where current approaches are not working, yet those responsible for the current approaches alone have the organisation to run the zones and the information to make successful bids. It is hardly surprising that all the bids in the first round of tendering--and there are 60 odd bids--except one, are LEA-led. That is a natural consequence of the requirements that have been created. They can expect to get an extra half million pounds or more from the Government, which of course is a great incentive. The role of the private sector is limited to coughing up matching funds and providing management expertise so that they can claim that the schools, or the forum, or the zone, whatever it is called, will be more efficiently managed. No educational body, no body with any distinctively educational philosophy to contribute, can get on to the first rung of the bidding ladder that has been set up. No wonder the noble Minister used the words "carefully controlled circumstances" in connection with the education action zones. No wonder she talked about "identifying" good practice rather than creating good practice. The Government say they want innovation, but they are too scared to give up control. From such nervousness nothing new or interesting has ever come or can come.
In setting up this deterrent machinery, the Government have failed to learn anything from the experience of the charter school movement in the United States. The charter of 1991 granted businesses, non-profit groups, community leaders and parents the right to apply to the state for a charter to operate a school. Charter schools are now the fastest growing reform movement in the United States. But the lesson from that experience has been that everything depends on the conditions of the charter. If these are too onerous, no one applies.
One of the most successful charter schools in recent years is the Springfield School in Massachusetts, run by the private operator, Sabis School Network. The Massachusetts' statute is so framed that it allows charter schools to opt out of most state school requirements, including those covering the curriculum and, very importantly, teacher tenure and dismissal. Springfield was a real sink school when it was granted charter status almost three years ago. Sabis fired a lot of incompetent teachers but did not become selective. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that success does not necessarily depend on selection. Because I am a liberal, I think that schools should control their entrance policy, but I agree that success does not necessarily depend on selection. At the time when Springfield school became a charter school it had 360 pupils and was placed 41st out of 42 schools in the district. Today, still non-selective and with 750 pupils, it ranks third in the district--up from 41st to third in two-and-a-half years. Sabis has not put in a bid to run any action zone in this country. It finds the system complex to the point of being nonsensical.
This is a missed opportunity, killed off by the Department for Education and Training, that graveyard of hopes; by the LEAs whose monopoly is threatened; by the teaching unions--by all those who have a vested interest in keeping things as they are and above all in keeping control of the system as it now is. I accuse the Government of a lack of courage in facing up to those interests, but when this experiment fails, as I believe it must, I trust that they will come forward with another Bill which offers more hope and which we, on this side of the House, could support.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, when I was preparing for this debate I did not think, for one moment, that I would be sitting with a new noble friend on my right hand. It is a particular pleasure for me on these Cross-Benches to have Lord Dearing alongside. I am sure that he will be alongside throughout this Bill and for many of our other debates on education and training. And, indeed, it was a pleasure to listen to my former colleague in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley.
I wish to say something first about the form of the Bill, a little about the form of its scrutiny in another place and then something about its content. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, flagged up what I might say about its form. This massive Bill is unique in an important sense in terms of legislation in these Houses of Parliament in that it gives a taste of what is to come. It is a piece of primary legislation drafted for England and Wales, but it is drafted in a period of transition. That explains some of the aspects of the Bill in terms of regulations, codes of practice and the difference as it applies to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Wales. There I should declare an interest. As chairman of the Welsh Language Board, I have responsibility for a strategic overview of Welsh medium education and therefore work for the Welsh Office for two days a week. But when I rise in this place I do not speak for it and would not in any sense try to do so.
Some of the aspects to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred will be relevant throughout the stages of our debate. The Bill depends not just on one White Paper, Excellence in Schools, Command 3681, but on another even more substantial White Paper, because it is bilingual, Building Excellent Schools Together, Adeiladu Ysgolion Ardderchog Gyda'n Gilydd. I say that for the benefit of my other friend and colleague in another place, now the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, who will also, no doubt, take part in our debates. There are significant differences in the White Papers; they are not merely textual, although it is not for me to say, as someone who used to teach literature, that anything is merely textual.
The title of the White Paper is interesting. The Welsh version insists on "Building Excellent Schools Together", emphasising the partnership which is so much the in-word of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Ron Davies, and also his colleague, Mr. Peter Hain. More of him in a minute. The White Paper is also a unique document. It is the first White Paper specifically dealing with Welsh education
The difference between the legislation as it applies to the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been clearly set out by the Secretary of State for Wales in another place when speaking on the transfer of powers to the national assembly for Wales in the Government of Wales Bill, which will visit us fairly soon on the back of this Bill.
The position at the moment is that functions have been transferred to or located with the Secretary of State for Wales under current legislation by Order in Council. This Bill transfers functions under primary legislation, and that will be the future pattern, so far as I understand it. That is the answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I am sure that her noble friend on her Front Bench will be able to confirm that in detail.
What happens in the context of the Bill in the transitional stage is worth considering in some detail, not now at Second Reading but later in Committee. There are different regulations enabling LEAs in Wales to establish organisational committees and enabling the Secretary of State to appoint adjudicators in different ways. The clauses in Chapter II provide for the Secretary of State to take a different approach in publishing proposals to establish and prescribe regulations as regards various types of school. Again, there are the important delaying powers in the establishment of the education action zones. It may well be the case that the national assembly will not choose that particular model of school improvement where there are problems. It may adopt another model more in keeping with community commitments.
Similarly, the issue of the sale of school playing fields does not apply to Wales. The code of practice in relation to the admissions authority differs. So it continues through the Bill, particularly in Clauses 117 and 118, which strengthen the link between further education institutions and the rest of the education system in order to provide better partnership in full-time and part-time education between the FE sector and schools.
That brings me to my next point. I know it is not conventional for this House to be severely critical of what goes on in another place, but it seems to me that the attempt at scrutiny of this important piece of primary legislation, so far as it affects Wales, was inadequate. There was one speech at Second Reading from Mr. Barry Jones, a well-known government supporter and one speech from Mr. Cynog Dafis, my honourable friend the Member for Ceredigion. The Education Minister for Wales, Mr. Peter Hain, was present on the Committee, for relevant clauses. So far as I can see, no other Member for Wales was on the Committee or took part in the debate. There were further debates on Report stage, with a distinguished contribution again from my honourable friend Mr. Cynog Dafis.
It seems to me that the authorities of these Houses of Parliament need to consider carefully in future how they deal with the substantial body of primary legislation affecting England and Wales together which will be introduced in both Houses in the context of the national assembly. How will they ensure that the scrutiny of such legislation carried out by Members of both Houses is sufficient to enable the assembly to feel satisfied that its attitudes and position in relation to the administrative responsibilities which it will carry out by regulation will have been sufficiently scrutinised at primary legislation stage? I flag all that up because it is relevant to the Bill and will become even more relevant as we move on to the Government of Wales Bill after Easter.
Finally, I turn to the issues of content. The Bill emphasises the differences between the educational system of the Principality and that of England. The Welsh Local Government Association has emphasised the need for greater flexibility on the face of the Bill in order to ensure that the national assembly is able to execute the functions which will be devolved to it effectively. There are certain exceptions within the system which are worth highlighting.
Foundation schools, as they are called, are not regarded by the WLGA as being a vital category in terms of administration in Wales. That is despite the fact that the grant-maintained system was conceived by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, a distinguished educationist of the Conservative Party. It was not a system that achieved a universal welcome in Wales. It may well be that in the context of the national assembly he may be able to use his powers of persuasion to make these ideas more acceptable. But at this stage, the distinction between foundation schools and community schools is not very valid in terms of administration in Wales. WLGA feels that such a category is not required.
Similarly, WLGA feels strongly that the specific grant approach adopted in Clause 3 in terms of class size initiatives is not the most effective way of operating. It is a bureaucratic system and there should be greater flexibility.
My final point is that, as we visit this Bill in detail, we will need to look at the way in which this kind of framework legislation can provide for diversity of education systems in both England and the Principality of Wales and how we can be assured that this House and the other place deals with those issues in a balanced and fair way. We have a traditional commitment to education in all parties in Wales. That commitment has often been rhetorical. We have not been able to address the standards issue. We are keen to address it, but it must be addressed in a way which meets the community attitudes of Wales, not necessarily in the way set out in the detail of the Bill.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I have a confession to make. Despite a lifetime spent working in schools in both the maintained and independent sectors as teacher, headmistress and governor, I find the Bill as it stands confusing and disappointing. Of course we all want to continue the improvement in our schools--I say "continue" because the Education Reform Act 1988 made a good start. I did not necessarily agree with all the subsequent legislation, but overall the last government constructed a framework which was working.
I was pleased to hear the Minister's assurance, when she took up her post last year, that the new Labour Government were concerned with standards, not structures. Why then are we offered so many prescriptive and constraining clauses? This Bill is not so much a framework, as a straitjacket.
Bad schools which are failing their students need to be controlled and closely monitored. But schools which are doing well need space to develop, to be creative, to innovate. The head teacher and the senior staff must have some freedom to plan for themselves. I so agree with the eloquent remarks of my noble friend Lady Young on the importance of teachers and especially head teachers. I worry that the sweeping powers proposed in this Bill for local education authorities to intervene in schools will bring back all the bad, bureaucratic, formulaic practices of the past.
Each LEA will be obliged to produce an education development plan for the provision of education for children in its specific area. That EDP must then be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Think of the time that will take; think of the number of new forms that will have to be filled in by the schools; think of the paper that will be wasted; but think particularly of the teachers who are already overburdened by paperwork. I am horrified by the bureaucratic demands made already by the DfEE on teachers, taking up time that the teachers should be spending with pupils, preparing lessons for them, correcting homework and undergoing in-service training.
I mention teachers. They are the ones who deliver education. Good teachers need to be enabled, not constrained. Yet in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill reference is made to LEAs, the Secretary of State, government, financial management,
One of the most muddled sections in the Bill concerns, as we have heard already, admission procedures. It is a basic fact that even Mr. Micawber would have understood that if 500 11 year-old children apply for the 150 available places in a school, some selection procedure must be applied. It does not have to be on academic grounds--for many children throughout the country it is not. Every school should make the most of that which is its characteristic. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not in his place. I should like to have said to him: what about a specialist music school not being allowed to select its pupils on musical aptitude and ability? What sort of orchestra would it have?
Diversity and individuality are important. Teachers, students, parents and governors can be proud of the characteristic of their school. In the CTC where I am privileged to be chairman of governors--the Landau Forte College in Derby--we do not interview parents; we ensure that our comprehensive intake reflects a true cross-section ability within the City of Derby. We are in competition--if we thought in that way--with four independent grammar schools and several other specialist schools. But we are not worried. The teachers are confident. The governors are supportive and nobody has a hidden agenda. We have the highest aspirations for our students, whatever their IQ on entry. Whatever they are able to do--their aptitude or ability--we expect the very best of which they are capable. And it is surprising how much better those students do than they thought they might on entry. By all means call the admissions procedure "structured discussion"--I believe that is the new phrase--but I beg the legislators not to confuse aptitude with ability.
Finally, in relation to the future of grant-maintained and grammar schools, I should have thought that a government declaring their commitment to excellence in schools would encourage and enable schools that are patently doing a good job.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Further Education Funding Council. There are one or two clauses at the latter end of the Bill which refer specifically to the contribution that further education colleges might make. However, I do not propose to reflect on that matter because I think it is not the central issue with regard to the Bill. I want to concentrate on those issues which have exercised the majority of those who have contributed to the debate.
Like many other speakers, I am a somewhat battle-scarred warrior of the endless debate in British--predominantly English--education over selection versus comprehensive schooling. I say freely that the temptation is enormous--I am not quite sure whether I am able to refrain--to make the whole of my speech on that dimension. The encouraging aspect of the Bill is that it points to ways in which constructive action can be taken to improve education in this country without revisiting that old battleground.
It is a fairly marginal battleground now. Of course the Front Bench opposite has to rally its forces with the clarion calls of how to defend the grammar schools. How many grammar schools are there? There are just over 160 out of 24,000 schools in this country. How many grammar schools are there after 18 years of Conservative government? How many grammar schools have disappeared under previous Conservative administrations? The simple fact is that the rallying cry is inherently a spurious one. It is not one that will run with the populace out there.
In a consuming society in which parents care about the opportunities for their children, if you believe that such parents are going to hand over to others the arbitrary selection of their children at the age of 11, defining for the majority that they are failures at that age, you are not living in the real world. The concept of the grammar school is bound to imply the selection of a limited number and the rejection of a greater number. Conservative politicians have argued vociferously in debates in both Houses about the principle of defending grammar schools--we heard that eloquently from the Front Bench opposite again today--but when it comes to action when they are in power, and when they are before the electorate, the issue becomes relatively small scale. And so it should be.
The real point was made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in his maiden speech. In a number of reports he has identified just what the issues are, and we are grateful for that; namely, that selection and rationing of educational opportunities for a limited number does not meet the needs of a modern society to which we all need to contribute. In days past, when it was possible to think that the development of our society and of our economy could be advanced by limited numbers having access to privileged education
It is clear that a modern society needs mass higher education and the previous Conservative government made enormous strides towards that. But the narrowness of selection implied by grammar school education, where 10, 15 or, at the absolute maximum, 20 per cent. had the opportunities to advance their life chances, must be seen against a background where we already have more than 30 per cent. entering higher education. Why is that possible? It is possible because we have an education structure in our schools which is not highly selective but is based predominantly on the comprehensive principle.
I say therefore to my friends who have expressed anxieties and addressed questions to Ministers about the issue of aptitude versus ability that those are marginal issues compared with the real points the Bill seeks to address. It is clear that unless we educate the broad mass of our population adequately we will not enjoy the fruits of a developing economy and, more importantly, our fellow citizens will be massively disadvantaged in their life opportunities.
The particular dimensions of the Bill which are directed towards those who are significantly disadvantaged were paid lip service to in a slighting manner by some of my noble friends who suggest that there is nothing in the Bill of a redistributive nature. I say to them that they are wrong in their interpretation. To get smaller classes for all primary school pupils is a significant advantage in educational terms. Resources have been redirected from the assisted places scheme, which enabled relatively few to participate in the advantages of private education, such as they are, to ensure that all our children have equal opportunities at the early stages of their school lives. If there is one aspect of educational research on which both sides can agree--I pay tribute to those Conservative educationists who have long recognised this fact--it is the research which says that the early years are critical and that good society and intelligent government need to invest adequately in those early years. That is a significant aspect of the Bill.
Our education system in the past has manifestly failed to deliver adequately in those terms. Illiteracy in our society is a long-standing problem. One million adults are functionally illiterate. That was the case under the old selective system too. The inadequacy of our education system to guarantee the fundamental skills for all our children and subsequent adults is the greatest blot on our society's record. That is why the problem needs to be rectified.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said about the limitations of the education action zones and I recognise that there are many points to be teased out in how those are to develop. But let us give great credit to the Government for introducing this initiative in the Bill. I have heard doubts in the past about initiatives of this kind in other areas of government policy where it was felt that government were pushing out the boat but were not quite sure how
It is not the case that local authorities are run by hidebound ideologues with insufficient capacity to learn. Of course, there are people with strong principles. We would not expect activists in politics, whether in the lower House, in this House, or in local authorities, to be anything else but committed on their principles. But local authorities have had to learn a great deal in terms of the changing demands made on them by central government in recent years. I have not the slightest doubt that they will be able to respond significantly to the opportunities created by the education action zones. That is against a background where the concentration of resources directed towards quite clear and specific problem areas should surely be welcomed by my noble friends on these Benches as a very clear identification of directing resources where they are most needed. I listened carefully to what was said in a rather pessimistic way about the potential of these zones. I maintain that they are an excellent principle with the capacity to lift the quality of education in areas where it is most needed.
A tremendously important aspect of the Bill is the extent to which there is emphasis on the increased role of the parent. Of course, one recognises that there are difficulties about the concept of the home-school contract. Who could not fail to appreciate that children from the most disadvantaged circumstances have less than a supportive home background? But that places an obligation on the school to engage with the parent and the parent to engage with the school and send out the strongest possible signal. That does not mean that it is going to be universally successful. It means that the Government are emphasising to the local authorities, schools and parents the mutuality of their obligations.
There are plenty of issues in a Bill of enormous length which occupied the other place for a considerable time. We have a great deal of meat, whether boned or boneless, to chew on throughout the Committee stage. There are concepts within the legislation which get us away from the rather sterile debate about selection versus comprehensive education and rather more towards the issues of standards in our schools which is what our nation demands and we are obliged to deliver.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as the 17th speaker, I believe that it falls to me to assure the noble Baroness that if she chose this moment to have some much-deserved refreshment, the House would not begrudge it. I can assure her that I shall not be putting any questions to which she might have to reply. After all, the enthusiasm of her own party for the Bill is shown by the crowded Benches behind her.
It is a pity that I have to discuss a Bill when I have no sympathy at all for its basic philosophy, as expressed, since she is still here, by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. It is as possible for the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and myself to agree about the principles of an educational system as it is for Mr. Gerry Adams and the Reverend Ian Paisley to find themselves in common accord.
There is an illusion shared by some of my noble friends, notably--because she mentioned it--by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke that this is a government devoted to improving educational standards. They go back again and again to what Mr. Blair said during the election campaign or shortly afterwards; namely, "Education, education, education." I believe that they totally misunderstood his purpose. He was using the word in the same way as the Paris sans-culottes meant it--I bring in some French in order to ingratiate myself with the Prime Minister--"Bastille! Bastille! Bastille!" In other words, "Let's tear it all down!". If the Government had seriously intended to improve the standards of education, surely the first thing to do would be to look at successful schools--there are various ways in which their success can be demonstrated--and say, "We have a number of successful schools. Let us try to find out whether we can improve other schools by taking these as a model." Instead of that, and despite all the talk about standards and not structures, the Government propose, first, to get rid of the successful schools and then, presumably, to think of some new recipe for the schools that remain.
It is, of course, useless to enter into controversy with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, because his horizons--I know he has an interest--are so parochial. After all, if the object of the system is in part to compete with our industrial rivals or partners, is it not a surprising fact that most of them, in varying degrees, have different systems of education and that the comprehensive school is an English peculiarity?
The noble Lord may be right. It may be a desirable form of education. But let us hear some arguments in favour of it other than the brandishing of class consciousness to which some speakers who are not in the Chamber at the moment restricted themselves. The first thing to say is, "Can we make other schools better and have we got any models to bring that about?" The most obvious model, referred to by more than one speaker on this side of the House, is that of a school which is responsible for itself--that is to say, a school where only the teachers and the head can possibly bring about an improvement in standards and that any form of bureaucratic intervention, whether it be by the Secretary of State, city hall or wherever, is a detraction from that major duty.
In our debate on the equally unmeritorious Teaching and Higher Education Bill I pointed out, as did other speakers, that an enormous amount of time is being wasted in universities in filling out unnecessary forms, assessment procedures and all the other bureaucratic rubbish which has come in over the years when it could have been devoted to teaching and research. That began prior to the appearance of the Bill before us. We are now wanting to wish on the schools--teachers at current
The underlying factors may be ethnic, as they partially are in the United States and France. There may be other reasons--the industrial decline of once prosperous areas and so on. But surely a government able to say, "Here is a specific problem and we have something which will deal with it" would have elicited cross-party support which this Bill neither deserves nor will command.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, it is regrettable that noble Lords seem to boast about how little they agree with one another on this Bill when its main purpose is to try to find a middle way between what we have inherited from the former government and the previous ideologies of a full comprehensive system. That is what the Bill works towards and we should congratulate the Government on setting out on this path.
This is a very large and complex Bill. All of the Government briefing papers that I have received say that the single objective of the Bill is to raise standards. The Bill represents a variety of mechanisms to ensure that that takes place. I welcome the reference to maximum class sizes and the safeguarding of the religious ethic, school meal nutritional standards and in particular the parity of funding of various forms of school. I shall concentrate on two aspects of the Bill and then chance my arm by considering the difference between aptitude and ability, if I have time. The first issue is the school organisation committee. I suspect that the Committee stage of this Bill will spend a great deal of time looking at the powers of that committee and its relationship with the adjudicator. The vast bulk of the decisions to be taken by the SOC will be through discussion and agreement, and that is the aim of the Bill as I understand it. That is to be welcomed.
I received a letter from the Grant Maintained Joint Monitoring Group which asked specifically why at least one foundation school representative should be on the SOC as of right. I ask why all secondary heads should not be on the SOC as of right. I believe that to be a reasonable proposition. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me how the school organisation committee will address the issue of the cross-border trade in children who move in and out of a borough for different schools? Will there be a formal mechanism with the surrounding boroughs to deal with that? Finally, I ask my noble friend about the CTCs. I do not understand
The second detailed issue that I should like to deal with is class sizes. I welcome the reduction in class sizes to 30 for five, six and seven year-olds. I particularly welcome the fact that that is to be funded by the abolition of the assisted places scheme. I am aware that the Minister for School Standards, Mr. Byers, has announced additional flexibility, to which my noble friend Lady Lockwood referred, to reduce the necessary travelling particularly for country schools in order to meet this commitment.
I now venture into the question of aptitude versus ability. Some noble Lords may be aware that I am the only noble Lord who takes part in debates in this House to have attended a comprehensive school. I have been in this House for about seven years. As far as I am aware, I am the only noble Lord who has attended such a school. I can speak with authority that some comprehensive schools are highly successful, but some fail. The belief in a single comprehensive structure that will benefit all children is a romantic one. I do not believe that the comprehensive system ever was uniform or that it is particularly desirable to work towards that structure.
I now live in the London Borough of Wandsworth. In that borough there has been a big move towards selection and specialisation in schools, both grant-maintained and those still run by the borough. Certainly the parents that I know are very dissatisfied with the pressure to which their children are subject when they are 10 years old. They have to undergo a number of selection exams. Of course, where there is success there is failure, and a number of children fail the exams. However, parents accept and are appreciative of a degree of specialisation in some secondary schools. I do not believe that specialisation and selection go hand in hand. I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, take the mickey out of the Government about the difference between aptitude and ability. I heard a good number of speeches by Conservative councillors in the London Borough of Wandsworth who tried to explain the difference between aptitude and ability. They used that as a justification for introducing the specialisations of the secondary schools.
I give one successful example: the specialisation in technology. Unfortunately, it has been dressed up as a CTC in my borough. I believe that to have a specialisation in technology has raised the status of technology in my borough and for that reason has been of benefit. That is something that I welcome. I live in a borough of extremes. I believe that to go back to the romantic past of the comprehensive system is also extreme. Fundamentally, this should be a local issue and local education authorities should have a rational admissions structure. It does not need to be a uniform structure across the country. Different parts of the country have different requirements. I believe that the debate about aptitude and ability is an entirely sterile one. It should be up to the local population in the widest sense to decide how local education should be structured.
I managed to find one matter on which I could agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I often follow the noble Lord in debates so I am happy that at last I have found one matter on which I can agree with him. He said that one should look to successful schools as models for future schools. I thought that that was precisely what the Government sought to do. They may have changed the names of the schools but they envisage a number of types of schools each with a different ethos. The fact that the Government seek to do that within an enhanced LEA framework is to be welcomed. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is in extremis in a number of matters, but I hope he recognises that that is what the Government seek to do.
I welcome the Bill. It represents another manifesto commitment that has been fulfilled. I hope that once the Bill completes its passage through this House there will not be another education Bill for quite some time. Perhaps I shall be disappointed in that regard. I conclude by congratulating my noble friend on the introduction of this Bill.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, so many of my noble friends have made excellent points on the matters in the Bill that they find disturbing, that I see no reason why, at this stage in the evening, I should weary your Lordships by repeating them. I shall have plenty of opportunity in Committee for which I have already drafted 60 amendments including, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will be glad to hear, one attempting a definition of "aptitude" and "ability". I look forward to hearing some of the detailed matters we shall discuss then.
I am grateful to the Minister for telling us so much that is not in the Bill; that which is hidden away in appendices and regulations which we have yet to see. She put a great deal of flesh on the bones of this stark Bill, for which I am grateful. I am grateful also for her confirmation that the Government will be encouraging LEAs to allocate additional funds to popular primary schools and nursery schools in connection with the additional provision which will be necessary to meet the class-size objectives.
Many LEAs, if one judges them by their actions rather than by their words, have been disgracefully unsupportive of the best schools in their areas. To name one which I saw recently, Camden School for Girls is in appalling premises in appalling conditions, despite being one of the best schools in London. I hope that that is the type of problem that the Minister and her party will find themselves able to tackle through this and subsequent Bills.
I am also grateful to the Minister for what she said about further education. Again, something that is not on the face of the Bill is the involvement of the FEFC in planning school provision locally. That is a long overdue and well-justified reintegration of education provision in this country. It is right that the FEFC should be independent. It is excellent that it is now becoming an integrated part of the system. I hope that we shall see some amendments in Committee to put that on the face of the Bill rather than just in the Minister's speech on Second Reading.
I wish to concentrate upon two concepts which are reflected in various ways in the Bill. The first is the concept of variety or diversity in the nature of schools. It is clear from much that the Minister said today and from much that is in the Bill that the Government support and understand the concept of diversity. The Minister said that she supported and wished to extend parental preference. If there is not a diversity of schools from which to choose there is little point in having such preference. There are many good reasons why parents might want to choose between different schools. There are many different styles of education. Different sorts of schools suit different sorts of children. Parents are wont to express strong preferences for different styles.
I look at the three good comprehensive schools in Winchester. They are three very different schools, all of roughly equivalent academic standard, but the schools are run in very different styles. There is a great deal of potential choice for parents if only the LEA would condescend to arrange its transport so that people could take advantage of it. At the moment only those who can afford to spend the time and the money transporting their children to the school of their choice can take advantage of the choice which exists.
But I am disturbed that the Government seem to be continuing their old vendetta against grammar schools. I am no friend of grammar schools. I would not wish my child to go to a grammar school. By and large, I find them pretty boring places, but they have a function. They provide a particular sort of education for the children who are suited to it and for the parents who wish to have that particular kind of education for their child.
Grammar schools will occur anyway. If they are not provided by the Government or by LEAs under a selective system, they occur by parents choosing to move near to a school or within the catchment area of a school that has a reputation for being academic. That is a much more disruptive and unhealthy way of creating academically selective schools. You not only create the schools that are academically selective, you break the community. You "ghettoise" the communities which are
Children from the bottom 20 per cent. of the class are not always best served by being stuck in a school where they are in the bottom 20 per cent. The child's character matters much more than its particular academic ability. Many children in the lower 20 per cent. would do best in a school directed particularly at their own particular needs. Such children are often children of enormous talent, but not of straightforward academic talent. To be in a school whose whole ethos is directed towards dealing with the top 40 per cent. of the academic echelon must be a depressing and dispiriting experience for many such children.
One independent school headmaster when asked the rhetorical question, "What are the bottom 20 per cent. of the class for?", replied, "To employ the top 20 per cent.". If we look at the people who have created business and jobs in this country, how many of them have come from grammar schools? Remarkably few. How many of them have been through rather strange and personal educational preferences, often leaving school early? A surprisingly large number. We have to nurture and look after the people in the bottom 20 per cent. because they form an important part of our society. Much of the future strength and innovation in our society will come from such people--those who do not fit into a narrow academic mould.
I am sorry that we are not to allow schools to emerge in our state system which specialise in looking after children of high, but perhaps narrow, academic ability, or children perhaps of not much conventional academic ability, but great width. We have that sort of breadth in our independent sector. No parent worth his or her salt would send a future Richard Branson to Winchester. They would send him, as he went, to Stowe or one of the other schools which provide an excellent education for people like him with his particular abilities. It is lucky for this country that he went to such a school and was not confined to the grammar school ethos. The creation of grammar schools and schools that specialise in the less academically apt pupil is an important part of creating variety in our schools system.
The second aspect upon which I wish to touch is information. An extraordinary revolution is going on in our better schools in the use of information about pupils: on how well they are doing; on value-added; and all sorts of other offshoots of the great work being done by Professor Carol Fitz-Gibbon and others at Durham. When one gets into the sort of school which is using this information well, it is extraordinary how the excitement is infectious; how it has caught even the English and history departments which are not staffed by people who are used to using numbers, who are used to making broad value judgments about their pupils; and how much use they find they can make of this information in helping individual students and teachers improve in understanding what is happening and what is going on.
We are to have a whole new layer of this information coming from education development plans if we are careful, if we structure the way in which they are set up, if we ask them to collect information in the right way. We should collect a great deal of information about how schools can succeed and what it takes to make a school succeed. In the Bill I shall look for arrangements whereby that data are, first, collected properly; and, secondly, are made available to academics, along with Ofsted's data which should be made much more available to academics and which should be much more widely reported and discussed in academic papers than they are.
Something which we can see from what went wrong at MAFF with BSE is that although MAFF had excellent scientists, and was collecting a great deal of data about BSE, it kept it to itself. It would not let anyone else look at it. Over the past year or two independent scientists have started looking at the MAFF data, and we have seen that there is so much more information there; there is so much more to come from it, from people looking at it from different angles, from people criticising this, that, or the other aspect of it, and through not having been tied to decisions and pronouncements made previously. I should like to see the richness of academic intellect applied to all the information which we shall be collecting on how schools work and how schools perform.
Beyond anything else, I hope that it will help to stick a final pin in the ridiculous Liberal Democrat policy which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, propounded again today. I am delighted that he remembered the barbed remark which I made to him on the previous occasion. It is ridiculous for a party and a gentleman as intelligent as he to fly in the face of the evidence. The Ofsted report is clear that there is benefit in smaller class sizes in the early years, but no significant benefit thereafter. I can understand the noble Lord paying no attention to Ofsted because it is interpreting its own data and there may be a hidden agenda. That is one of the reasons why I should like to see Ofsted data opened up. But if, as I hope, the noble Lord has read all the original research papers on the Tennessee Star Project he will see that in later years an improvement can be made by lowering class sizes, but if an extra 50 per cent. is spent on additional teachers there is a 1 per cent. improvement in performance. It is a ridiculous waste of money to reduce class sizes by the numbers which are within the Government's capacity. In later years there are so many better ways of spending money. To have information and data, and to have independent demonstration that that is the truth, will be of great use to the Government in avoiding waste of money, and great use to schools in their care of pupils.
Lord Rix: My Lords, stranded at Crewe Station last Friday afternoon, awaiting a train to Euston, which never arrived (I will not mention the name of the operating company, but I overheard a disgruntled passenger say that it would be quicker by balloon) this
Be that as it may, it might have been my speed-reading or the icy wind blowing along Platform 5 bringing tears to my eyes, but I am certain that I caught sight of only three reasonably substantial references to special schools or special educational needs, in Clauses 20, 93 and 116, out of a total of 133 clauses. I failed to read the schedules, for by then I was racing from Platform 5 to Platform 11 in an effort to catch a ghost train which was apparently on its way to London; but that, too, never arrived.
If this Bill exists to construct the framework of schools of the future, it is vital that consideration of the requirements of this large, disparate and special needs group is given as much priority as any other and discussed, therefore, at this early stage. Others of your Lordships will no doubt have things to say about different special groups. However, I wish to underline the statements made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, particularly about children with learning disabilities for whom a learning difficulty is a sine qua non. I choose to do that for, as I am sure your Lordships are only too aware, I have the honour to be the chairman of the charity for people with learning disabilities, Mencap--or to give it the currently politically incorrect title, the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults. Your Lordships will have noticed that children come first--as is the natural order of things--and our long-held view--long before 1971, when our children were, for the first time, considered to be educable--is that education means appropriate education for each and every child. If that can be achieved in an inclusive mainstream school, so much the better. If it cannot, and an appropriate education can be provided in a special school, many parents and pupils would put the right education in a special school well ahead of the wrong education in a mainstream school. The vital aim, as I have just said, is appropriate education for every child. Children go to school for their own benefit, not for the benefit of other children.
Mention of Lewis Carroll reminds me to follow the King's advice in Alice in Wonderland; I shall "begin at the beginning" with the provisions in the Bill for admission arrangements. Mencap welcomed the Green
The then Department of Education Circular 6 of 1993, before the flood in another place, as it were, on admission to maintained schools, provided guidance on acceptable and unacceptable criteria for use in admission arrangements. The guidance made it clear that it was not acceptable for a school to refuse to admit a child on the grounds that it, the school, could not meet the child's special educational needs.
Still before the flood, the 1996 Circular 6 replaced its 1993 predecessor. This document removed the protection granted by the earlier circular and increased the percentage of pupils who could be "selected" without a "significant change of character" for the school.
Such difficulties are, unfortunately, not well documented centrally, and although we know that they exist, we do not know the extent of them. Where there is a need for a statement and for the extra resources that go with it, fine; but I suspect that too often parents are dealing with excuses, not valid arguments.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for the discussions which her officials have already had with my colleagues on this vexed issue. Can she assure me that the code of practice on admissions, dealing with
Finally, I would like to see a mechanism which would enable local education authorities to monitor admissions. LEAs need to be able to check whether schools are systematically admitting many more or many fewer children with special educational needs than a fair proportion of their intake would suggest. Such information would be extremely helpful and inform discussions about admissions with schools in any particular area.
As a society, we should be judged by how well we treat those who need a little extra care--just as schools should be judged by their competence and willingness to meet special needs. No longer should they be able to live in their Alice in Wonderland world of,
There are three inter-related concerns which I shall address. The first is the massive increase in the powers of intervention by central government and the LEAs. There is a deep fear that that escalation of intervention will threaten and curtail the freedoms of individual schools and teachers and opportunities for creative initiatives which have so often resulted in the attainment of excellence. I fear that this Bill is a charter for dirigisme and for bureaucratisation, as my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lady Brigstocke, have already emphasised so eloquently.
My second concern is the relationship between standards and structures. Although the Title of the Bill rightly puts standards first, the provisions relate almost exclusively to structures. Even more disturbing, the kinds of structures to be promoted are those which have been shown by research to be associated generally with the poorest standards of pupil achievement.
My third concern is that the Bill appears to sound a death knell for many of the schools which are currently providing a very high standard of education, such as the grant-maintained schools and grammar schools. If their contribution to the provision of high quality education for many pupils, often from lower income families, is to be curtailed, then this Bill will represent a betrayal of many children who certainly cannot afford to opt out of the state system in order to obtain the high quality education which is now available to them in those schools. If the future of such schools is jeopardised, the Bill could better be named the Framework for the Reduction of Standards Bill.
Before I develop those themes, I should like to express my sincere appreciation of some of the Government's recent initiatives which have beneficial results for the provision of education within the state sector. I wish to highlight two of those.
First, I warmly welcome the Government's agreement to allow some very deserving independent schools to opt into grant-maintained status. I am thinking particularly of some of the faith community schools, including the John Loughborough School in North London and some of the schools serving the Islamic communities.
Several years ago, I proposed, as a kind of pilot run, the Second Reading of a Bill designed specifically to enable such schools to be able to opt into state funding. Although, on that evening, there was strong support from a powerful array of noble Lords on the Back-Benches of all parties, the then government and Labour Front Benches were implacably opposed to the proposal.
Subsequently, a previous Conservative government had a change of heart and permitted opting in in the 1993 Act. However, schools such as the Seventh-Day Adventist John Loughborough School and the Islamic schools were not successful in achieving grant- maintained status. Therefore, I warmly welcome this Government's policy which has enabled them to opt into Government funding because those schools are clearly providing education which is desired passionately by their local communities. It was provided previously only at a considerable cost to families who could ill-afford to have to pay for the schooling to which they are entitled.
However, I hope that that new-found freedom will not be jeopardised by the provisions of the Bill. I ask the Minister whether those schools will retain their freedoms and whether other schools, new and old, will be able to opt in as easily to state funding in the future framework.
The second achievement on which I commend the Government concerns funding arrangements. I believe that the new provisions which require greater clarity and transparency are entirely consistent with the principles of accountability and are extremely helpful in monitoring the extent to which LEAs are passing on funds to schools in their areas or holding them back for their own objectives.
But I return briefly to the three issues which I have already mentioned. The first is the essentially dirigiste nature of this Bill. As I have indicated already, I believe that the Bill is misnamed. Although there is obviously a relationship between the framework of educational provision and standards of educational attainment, as my noble friend Lady Young has already emphasised, this Bill is far more about structures than about standards. For example, there are 133 clauses and 31 schedules dealing with structures--that represents 90 per cent.--and only about 10 per cent. deals with standards. The Bill will also confer 71 new powers or duties on the Secretary of State and give 66 new powers or duties to LEAs.
Moreover, the philosophy underpinning the proposed structural reforms does not bode well for the promotion of educational standards. The massive commitment and the involvement of LEAs in all state schools as a means of promoting standards flies in the face of experience and reality. For example, it is in those areas where LEAs have maintained most control over schools, and especially those areas which have been perpetually
The excuse is often made that the poor educational achievement in those schools is a function of the social deprivation of pupils' backgrounds. That is not the case. Research has shown that that under-achievement is not attributable to social factors in pupils' backgrounds as such. In a study undertaken by my colleague, Dr. John Marks and myself, of the exam results of the 250,000 school pupils from representative samples across the country, we found massive differences in pupil attainment in different schools even holding the social class factor constant with pupils from similar socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds performing very differently in different schools. In some areas, some schools within walking distance of each other in exactly the same neighbourhood from which pupils came out-performed others by a factor of three in the educational qualifications which they enabled their children to obtain.
Therefore, it is just not correct to explain away the under-achievement in many schools in many Labour-controlled LEAs by the simplistic suggestion that that is attributable to the social backgrounds of their pupils. Of course, there are many good comprehensive schools in such areas and I pay tribute to them. There are also many very good schools of other kinds which have been allowed to flourish, independent of LEA control such as the grant-maintained schools and City Technology Colleges.
One outstanding example of many I could cite is Emmanuel College, a Christian City Technology College serving the socially deprived area of Gateshead, which has an educationally comprehensive intake. Last year, 91 per cent. of its pupils achieved five or more Grade A starred to Grade C at GCSE. That is more than twice the national average in all schools.
The case for intervention has been made by the Government in the White Paper in order to address the problems of failing schools. But when we look at the Bill, we find that it makes provision for indiscriminate intervention which is not in inverse proportion to a school's success. For example, some of the greatest educational success stories in recent years have been the achievements of grant-maintained schools. They have been de facto the education action zones of the past 10 years. But now they are to be formally abolished and their independence and freedom for innovation are directly threatened by the changes to be introduced, including changes to governing bodies, GM schools already in existence and the abolition of opportunities for other schools to opt-out into GM status.
Therefore, I ask the Minister whether the establishment of the much-vaunted education action zones will permit such diversity to flourish or will there be an ideological commitment against freedom, diversity, innovation and the excellence which those principles often generate?
Moreover, international research has shown that countries with a diversified secondary school system out-perform our comprehensive system by significant factors in the quality of education that they provide for pupils of all abilities. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether she will give assurances that the new framework which will be put into place will not be a vehicle for ideological bias against diversity of provision and the selection which must accompany such diversity?
For too long our educational system has allowed ideology to prevail over the commitment to the provision of high standards and an education which will enable all our children to realise their full potential.
I should like to finish with a salutary anecdote. During a recent visit to the war-torn Armenian region of Nagorno Karabakh, relocated by Stalin as an enclave in Azerbaijan, I took some gifts from children in a London primary school to 12 year-old children in the bombed out ruin of a school in the capital city Stepanakert. These Armenian children had spent months under constant bombardment, sheltering underground in basements and cellars. With the ceasefire, they were able to emerge and return to the ruins of their schools. When I met these 12 year-olds, they were huddled in a classroom without windows, without electricity and without light or heat in temperatures of minus 10 to 20 degrees. After the initial euphoria at receiving gifts, having been deprived of even essential supplies during long years of war and blockade, the children returned to their makeshift desks. Without any help from their teacher, each child wrote, spontaneously and independently, a letter to the British primary school children. They wrote in English. They all speak and write Armenian, which is a unique language with a unique script; they all read and write Russian--a totally different script and language. English is their third script and their third language. Yet their spelling and grammar were better than many British 12 year-olds. I shall give your Lordships two short, typical quotations which were written with perfect grammar and spelling. The first reads:
I should also add that those Armenian youngsters were not just focusing on foreign languages; they were also studying mathematics, including trigonometry, Armenian and Russian history together with literature, science, geography, art and music with virtually no teaching resources, but with standards comparable to their competence in English.
That anecdotal example of achievement of high educational standards by children deprived of all the luxuries of life, in a war zone, reflects less dramatic but more systematic evidence of high educational achievement in other countries and of relative underachievement by far too many children in this country.
It is imperative, therefore, that we subject both the current situation and the proposals for change outlined in the Bill to rigorous scrutiny in order to ensure that they will genuinely improve the educational standards for all our children. For too long, too much education has been sacrificed on the altar of ideology. We owe it to our children to question whether the framework for education, which will be implemented as a result of this proposed legislation, will achieve the ostensible objectives of the improvement of educational standards.
To the extent that those objectives can be shown to be achieved by the measures outlined in the Bill, I believe that they will be worthy of support. But, at the moment, I can see little congruence and much cause for concern. I will listen for reassurance, but fear that it may not be forthcoming and that many amendments will be needed as a damage limitation exercise to a Bill which appears excessively dirigiste, potentially destructive of many of the better aspects of the present system, and which offers little in the way of concrete measures to provide all our children with the education that they deserve and which our country needs.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I rise to speak with considerable trepidation, after four-and- a-half hours of debate, with a background in health rather than in education. However, I have become increasingly convinced that if we are to tackle many of the health problems of our nation, education is the basis of that approach. We need good education; indeed, its contribution to young people is incalculable, in health, in their personal lives and in the workplace.
The Bill has attracted a degree of criticism from noble Lords opposite during the debate. I was especially struck by their complaints about bureaucracy and the Bill's focus on structure. I believe that that is a little rich coming from the party opposite when one considers the massive burdens placed on teachers in our schools over the past 18 years by the previous government.
I am optimistic about the Bill. I particularly welcome the reduction in class sizes. I welcome the new category of schools which allows us to have a fair funding and accountability system but still retains a considerable degree of autonomy on the part of those schools. I also welcome the extension of the management of local schools on the same basis. I welcome the recognition of
I should especially like to focus on the role of LEAs in my remarks tonight. I have long been convinced that the LEA/school relationship is crucial. Of course, schools are in the forefront of improving standards, but LEAs can help enormously. Under the previous government their role was denigrated, diminished and undermined; and, indeed there was a threat of their complete marginalisation. I believe that that was a major error and I am delighted that that is now being put into reverse.
As my noble friend Lord Peston said, LEAs are democratically accountable to their local community and responsive to the views of their electorate. They can offer high quality support, advice and encouragement to schools. However, the question that I have to ask is whether those LEAs have been given sufficient powers in order to influence the maintained schools in their areas. In some areas, especially in relation to failing schools, clearly they do have sufficient powers to intervene. But I am not so sure about other areas; for example, on the agreement of targets with local schools, on local management of schools, on admissions and, indeed, when dealing with schools which may not be failing but which could certainly be described as rather complacent. I believe that there is a debate to be had in those areas as to whether LEAs will have sufficient powers.
Let us take as an example local management of schools. The draft code of practice has provided some very useful information. But I believe there is still potential for confusion between the statements of the educational leadership to be provided by the LEA on the one hand, and, on the other, the apparent expectation that much more money will be delegated to schools. We should not underestimate the importance of the ability of LEAs to use resources to target specific problems. There are a number of examples in Birmingham, my own LEA area, where that situation has occurred.
Another issue relating to LEA powers is to be found in the arrangements for admissions. The Government are not prepared to introduce the pattern of a single admission authority co-ordinating admissions to all types of schools in one LEA area. Instead, in addition to the LEA, individual governing bodies of foundation or voluntary aided schools will be the admission authorities. I must say that I foresee some hurdles getting in the way of the practical working of those arrangements in a city such as Birmingham, in which I take a particular interest. It would certainly help if my noble friend the Minister could make it clear how the new arrangements will improve on the current pattern, which I believe has led to disappointed expectations and an increasing number of appeals every year.
I have, instinctively, some sympathy with those who say that LEAs should be given more levers of influence over schools in their areas. However, I am just about persuaded that the Bill goes far enough. I am so persuaded for three reasons. First, it is clearly important that, while LEAs must have certain powers of
Secondly--and I agree very much with my noble friend Lady Lockwood in this respect--the code of practice on LEA/school relationships is a sensible framework in which to operate. Thirdly, it is clear from the recent report of the Audit Commission, which looked at the work of LEAs and which was published earlier this year, that the critical success factor for LEAs is their ability to act as agents of change and to be able to bring about improvement and excellence in their partners at school level.
The evidence in the Audit Commission report is that the best LEAs achieve that without wider powers. This has been achieved through creating the right culture, often driven by the efforts of strong leadership from the chief education officer. That has been clearly apparent in Birmingham where the inspired efforts of Professor Tim Brighouse, backed by a city council prepared to give support and resources, have paid real dividends. Indeed, the recent Ofsted inspection carried out on the Birmingham LEA stated--I suspect in spite of itself, and with gritted teeth--
Not surprisingly, teacher and parental confidence in Birmingham's comprehensive system is rising. But the one blot on the landscape is the impact of the six grammar schools within the Birmingham system. Apart from the pressures and tensions on many 11-year olds to pass the wretched exam they have to take, the grammar schools have undoubtedly had a divisive impact on the whole of the school system in Birmingham. As so many children, and in effect their parents, are creamed off from comprehensive schools, it is not choice we are seeing but a denial of choice to thousands of children who do not, in effect, have true comprehensive schools. Of course that is exacerbated by the previous government's obsession with crude examination league tables. It is hardly surprising that children who do well in examinations taken at the age of 11 do well, in the main, in examinations taken at the age of 16 or 18. Earlier, noble Lords referred to successful schools, but such statistics ignore the success and the tremendous added value which many comprehensive schools provide for our children.
I welcome the opportunity being given to parents to be balloted on that matter. I just hope that there will not be too many hurdles put in the way of a proper ballot. I am certainly optimistic of the outcome. It is noticeable that when parents have been consulted by LEAs wanting to re-introduce grammar schools, there has been overwhelming opposition. This means, of course, that the process of balloting will be the subject of much debate. Given the different circumstances of each LEA, it will not be possible to be absolutely prescriptive. But,
I acknowledge governing bodies as the unsung heroes of our educational system. The time, energy and devotion governors give to our schools is incalculable. I hope that in addition to the initial training which is offered to governors of schools, we shall underpin that by offering continuous opportunities for further training, support and development not just for individual members of governing bodies but also--this is important--for governing bodies as a whole.
However good a governing body may be, nothing is achieved without teachers. Many of the efforts being made to raise teaching standards are to be applauded. I particularly acknowledge the role of the teaching council, as set out in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. I welcome the proposed powers to suspend or permanently ban teachers for professional misconduct and professional incompetence. But side by side with a vigorous approach to weeding out poor performers, we must encourage, boost and praise the work of teachers. If we are to boost our educational services and to attract and to retain high quality people into the profession, we now need less of the big stick and more of the carrot. We need less sermonising to teachers and more encouragement. We need to do less talking down to teachers and more talking up.
The Teacher Training Agency's "No one forgets a good teacher" campaign has succeeded in raising awareness of the importance of teaching as a profession. Last week the agency's hotline was reported as receiving 1,000 new responses a week. That is a good start but there is certainly no room for complacency. The context in which we can recruit new teachers more effectively is that of a nation which values and respects teaching as a noble profession to which our best and brightest aspire.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, it is with a certain temerity that I speak in this Second Reading debate as I have no experience of teaching and certainly I have neither the ability nor the aptitude required for it. I am, however, a consumer of educational establishments having been a pupil and a parent and currently as a grandparent. I also have a great interest in education in its widest sense and understand only too well the importance of a good, broadly based education.
This Bill before us is by any standards a massive one and deserves careful scrutiny. I feel that in Committee we shall be giving it just that, so today I want to concentrate on just one aspect that I view with immense concern--the future of our grammar and grant-maintained schools. Shortly before the election there was a by-election in the Wirral and a good deal of
Ten days ago I attended a concert in the new hall of our local grammar school in Stratford-upon-Avon. It is a school of exceptional distinction and has served countless generations of local boys. Parents from all backgrounds in the area have aspired to have their children accepted by this centre of excellence. Their results in the league tables demonstrate how the pupils flourish when those of similar ability are taught together. I believe that the pupils who are given this opportunity are privileged, but in addition I feel privileged that locally we have such spectacular facilities available for the brightest children.
I believe in selection wholeheartedly and overtly. I also believe that we let our children down if we take an opposite view. It is no good placing children of mixed ability together. Children are not stupid; they know who are the bright ones. In such a situation no one flourishes. The brightest languish as they are not stretched and the less academic struggle to keep up, often to their detriment. This was brought home to me most vividly when the eight year-old daughter of a friend went home after school exams and said to her mother that she had come last. But she added, "Don't worry Mummy, they are all much cleverer than me. Somebody has got to be last, I don't mind and some of the others would." I must tell the House that her parents found the right school for her and she has developed into the most capable, confident and obviously generous hearted woman.
I understand that in Birmingham there is a monstrous suggestion that grammar school selection at 11 could continue but that at 14 pupils of any ability would be accepted. That seems to me the worst of all worlds for pupils, teachers and anyone trying to organise a sensible timetable that would cater for all the differing standards.
I understand that some schools would be able to accept a percentage of children on aptitude but not ability. Not knowing the difference between them, I thought I would consult the thesaurus on my PC, and there I found under "aptitude" an alternative word--"ability". This seems to be dogma gone mad and leaves me in a state of utter confusion. Do the Government believe in selection as long as nobody notices, especially where their own children are concerned? How on earth do you establish whether a child has an aptitude other than by some form of testing? Maybe parents would simply be able to state, "My child has an aptitude for music", or whatever the distinct subject in which their chosen school specialises.
The Prime Minister said he was interested in standards, not structures. It is therefore strange that so much of the Bill seems to be about structures. Grammar schools have 500 years of experience in developing the highest quality standards; yet the Government are willing to let their future be decided by ballot. Once
Another area of concern is the length of time between ballots. If it were to be as short a time as only five years, it would make the lives of governors and teachers impossible as they tried to cope with forward planning.
In recent years, grant maintained schools have developed into highly popular institutions, with parents willing to travel many miles to give their children this special opportunity. We are delighted that the Prime Minister and Harriet Harman have taken advantage of this facility, giving support to these most successful schools and the grant maintained system in general. It therefore seems a bit rich to propose changes to the structure of the grant maintained schools by making them foundation schools, bringing back the local authorities just when the head teachers and the boards of governors have shown that they do not need such interference. These schools have proved themselves and should be left to continue as real centres of excellence. Indeed, I should love to see a real expansion of such schools.
It is no good bleating about the pursuance of high standards for all while at the same time setting about the destruction of tried and tested systems. New Labour's current passion is to modernise (whatever that means) everything that has served this country well. I believe that the Government will come to regret their actions on grammar and grant maintained schools. No doubt future generations will hold them responsible for vandalising very precious assets in our educational system. I feel that as the Bill proceeds through the House it is our duty to assist both the grammar and grant maintained schools to save themselves, and this we shall do with great vigour.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, there should be few of us who are not prepared to congratulate the Government on promoting education as their number one priority. Many of their statements of broad principle on this are welcome. For example, from Labour's manifesto:
At the outset, I acknowledge that some measures--for example, the general thrust of education action zones--are welcome. Others, far from representing an abandonment of sterile arguments about structure or dogma, are exactly the reverse. Leaving that aside, it is the methodology that underpins delivery of the Bill's provisions that causes me most concern. Early in its consideration in another place, the Minister for schools standards stated (Standing Committee A, 20/1/98; col. 27):
By any interpretation, therefore, the Bill lies at the very heart of government policy. All well and good. And, that being so, it is reasonable to suppose, particularly in the context of the Minister's invitation, that the terms of the Bill are fully formed and very detailed in character, certainly sufficient to enable satisfactory scrutiny. No such luck!
As my noble friend Lady Blatch has already indicated, the Bill is littered with seemingly endless orders, regulations, guidance and codes of practice. Of course, I have no complaint about such instruments being used where they deal with the minutiae of a particular clause's provisions. This should not be allowed to disguise the fact that, as a generality, their almost obsessive use in the Bill will lead to increased bureaucracy. For example, it may be that the concepts of education development plans, school organisation committees, and so on, have merit; but they, and the regulations by which they will be bound, will inevitably create a circuitous paper-chase from one area of responsibility to another.
More disturbingly in the context of the Bill, many of these regulations deal with substantive matters of policy. The tone is set by the very first clause, which, by regulation, seeks to deliver the Government's manifesto pledge of reducing
We are spoilt for choice for other examples but, at random, I turn to Clauses 99 to 102. These contain references to a number of regulations relating to grammar schools, specifically with respect to balloting procedures. Your Lordships will be aware that the potential electoral rolls for such ballots are a very important issue in the broad sweep of the educational debate, not just in the context of grammar schools. But it is to be determined by regulation which, so far as I am aware, has yet to be prepared, even in draft form. Therefore, the opportunity for the matter to be subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny within the context of the Bill is severely constrained.
The difficulty is compounded by Clauses 79 and 80, which allow for the establishment of a code of practice relating to admission arrangements. These are a central issue, again not just in relation to grammar schools but in relation to the delivery of both standards and the total matrix of education provision. But the opportunity for their proper scrutiny within the context of the Bill is again constrained because of the absence of any draft code at this time. I acknowledge that Clause 80(3) allows for scrutiny of its terms by Parliament in due course, but I repeat that what is required is the opportunity to assess the matter in the context of the Bill, not in isolation from it.
This pervasive pattern of substantive matters of policy being determined by orders, and so on, is repeated time and time again throughout the Bill. I recognise, of course, that in their own way they are a mechanism for retaining decision-making power at the centre, part of the "centralising tendency" so despised by Will Hutton. They are part of the "command-and-control" culture. That is very un-new Labour, or so we have been led to believe, not least by the noble Baroness the Minister in her introductory remarks. It is all the more striking, therefore, that in among the confused patchwork of responsibilities for individual schools, LEAs, adjudicators, school organisation committees and the like a further significant theme of the Bill is a formidable extension of the powers and duties of the Secretary of State. Many other noble Lords have referred to this.
I do not dispute that, in the context of the provisions of Clause 8 with respect to failing schools, there is a reasonable case for this. It makes sense, not only for good practical reasons but also within the context of the Government's ambitions to drive up standards overall. But it is impossible to make the same sort of case for other provisions within the Bill. Clauses 6, 7, 79, 119 and 120 are particularly disturbing in so far as they have the potential for conferring upon the Secretary of State virtually unfettered powers to determine all aspects of education policy outside--this is the crucial point--proper scrutiny by Parliament. That is a case of interference, perhaps, rather than intervention. It seems to me that there are at least three aspects to this. First, this form of policy delivery is inimical to commitments contained in the Labour Party's election manifesto. That document states unequivocally that,
Secondly, the implicit inconsistencies of the Government's position here are, at least in part, a product of new Labour's own success. The Bill extends to both England and Wales. I touch here on issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. Clause 127(6) permits regulatory variation between England and Wales. But, as we are all aware, the assembly for Wales, with its responsibility for Welsh Office matters, is also
Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, as my noble friend Lady Blatch demonstrated so lucidly in her exposition of education action zones, there is a quite palpable sense--commentators are increasingly drawing attention to it--in which this Government believe that Parliament is no more than an irritation. EAZs aside, this was brought home to me most forcefully in a contribution on the last day of Committee in another place by the Minister for School Standards. Speaking to the Government's introduction of their amendment to establish the code of practice for the relationship between LEAs and the maintained sector, now Clause 119, he made the following observation:
I repeat that the Bill has good points, and I welcome them. But I cannot help feeling that the Government would have done themselves a favour had they listened to and legislated for their own rhetoric. Certainly many inconsistencies and incoherences could, and should, have been avoided by so doing. More disturbingly, the Bill, as an archetype of a legislative style, is deeply worrying in terms of both the capacity of Parliament to perform its proper duties of scrutiny and in terms of the proper chain of democratic accountability. I have no doubt that we shall do our utmost to improve it in Committee for the benefit of schools provision and, more importantly, for the educational and democratic expectations of our children.
Baroness David: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on producing this mammoth Bill. To me it is a very welcome Bill. It is not surprising that it has to be so big considering the 20 education Bills--I have a list of them here--that the Tories produced in their 18 years in power, containing so much that we opposed. LEAs were emasculated. That meant the discouragement of good officers who had done so much to encourage good practice and build up the education service. So I am very glad that power is to be returned to the LEA.
The push for high standards is commendable, as is the responsibility of local government to fund again all maintained schools. There will no longer be two educational sectors. All schools will be brought together in a single family of schools, and that will be fairer for parents, pupils and teachers.
I welcome, too, that there is to be a code of practice for LEA and schools relations. It is important to state clearly what an LEA's new responsibilities will be as well as the duties of the governing body and the head.
The Bill is excellent in setting up structures to enable staff and parents to work in partnership to help pupils achieve their best. But partnership is not just a two-way process. The Bill and the White Paper on which it is based omit the core element of the education system--the pupils. Children are people. It is a natural condition of children to learn. Harnessing children's and adolescents' active collaboration in their own education, working with the grain of their innate intellectual curiosity, are long-standing pedagogic principles. The Bill is weakened by its failure to recognise the huge potential pupils themselves can give, not as passive objects, but as active players in the educational system. Provision should be made to incorporate Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child within education law. Listening to pupils can reduce pupil disaffection and increase their commitment to their own education, the school and the wider community.
Pupil participation and consultation should become part of the development of a school policy on discipline; hence, we hope, on exclusions. They should be consulted on home/school agreements. Although the intention is to involve parents more closely in their children's schooling, the children themselves are ultimately responsible for producing their own homework, for attending class, for understanding the school ethos and behaving well.
On structures, Clauses 20 to 22 re-establish the responsibility of the LEA for all maintained schools and present the three categories of community, voluntary and foundation schools. I want to make a point about special schools, which in fact was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The White Paper proposes that special schools should become community schools. The Bill says that they can become foundation schools. LEAs now have a duty to review their special education provision. They have continuing and significant responsibilities for meeting special educational needs, in particular those that lie beyond the resources of their own mainstream schools.
There is, therefore, need to be able to deploy provision in response to changes in the pattern of local need, changes in the expression of parental preferences, and policy changes, for example increasing inclusion. This does not always work well. Not all LEAs review, plan and make provision in this responsive way. But this cycle needs strengthening not undermining. The Special Education Consortium believes that foundation status for special schools undermines the ability of the LEA to deploy resources in the responsive way I have outlined. Can the Minister say how local provision can be planned in the light of changing local needs if resources are
I have another point about special schools, and that is to do with exclusions. The increase in exclusions is extremely worrying. My noble friend Lady Lockwood gave the statistics. Many would point to a link between the increase in exclusions and the introduction of the national curriculum, the publication of league tables, and the delegation of funding to school level through LMS. The timing of the increase in exclusions would support that argument.
Many would agree that there have been benefits from these now well established features of the educational landscape. But they have no doubt combined to make some schools more reluctant to devote resources to those pupils who are more challenging in terms of the curriculum, more challenging in terms of the organisation of the classroom, more costly in terms of staff time and expertise, and less likely to bring glory to their school when it comes to league tables. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, alluded to that.
There is great variation between schools. Some manage to exclude very few children. The White Paper quotes examples of schools that have adopted sound methods to engage all pupils and minimise the difficulties that lead to exclusion. By contrast, cases that attained a high profile in the media in 1996 and 1997 reveal that exclusions may sometimes be more about schools that are failing their pupils than pupils who are failing their schools.
Research shows that schools have problems identifying pupils who are demonstrating behavioural difficulties. Teachers were over-estimating the IQ of pupils excluded for behavioural problems, failing to recognise that they find it hard to engage in the curriculum. The Ofsted report on the implementation of the code of practice two years on shows that a significant number of schools do not put their pupils on the SEN register. This means that problems are not addressed through the staged approach set out in the code of practice. Does the Minister think that a case conference built into the exclusion procedures could help to ensure that all children's needs are adequately identified? As schools vary, so do LEAs. High quality support services, working in partnership with schools on provision for individual pupils, and on whole school approach, have done much to reduce exclusions in Merton and Newham, examples in two authorities. All this means keeping back adequate funds for them to innovate and help schools having problems.
Anxieties have rightly been expressed about the high number of children with statements who are excluded. Nationally, 2.8 per cent. of children have a statement but recent statistics, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, show that 18 per cent. of those excluded have a statement. A great deal of trouble is taken getting a child with a statement to a school that is appropriate.
The 45 day total exclusion for the year, brought in by the 1997 Act and, I am sorry to say, confirmed in this Bill, cannot be right, particularly for SEN pupils. Would it not be sensible to limit the days excluded to 15 in any one term? Could the Minister tell us whether changes in the legislation, which the social exclusion unit may propose, can appear while this Bill is going through the House?
My final point is to welcome the inclusion in this Bill of provisions to extend the prohibition of corporal punishment to cover all pupils in independent schools and nursery education. It was very heartening to see the overwhelming majority that voted for it in the other place. It was also good that the Independent Schools Association welcomed the ban in advance of the clause being accepted.
But from children's perspective this reform has taken far too long to complete. It is over three centuries since in 1669 a "lively boy" presented a petition to Parliament to protest at "that intolerable grievance our youth lie under, in the accustomed severities of the school discipline of this nation." It is 25 years since Baroness Wootton introduced her Protection of Minors Bill in this House to end all school beating. It was defeated by 67 votes to 51.
It is over 10 years since a series of votes in this House led the previous government to accept reluctantly that it must prohibit corporal punishment in all state-supported education. And it has taken far too long to complete the task and remove the discriminatory anomaly which has allowed corporal punishment to persist in a small minority of independent schools.
It has been an embarrassing blot on the face of the UK's education system, and we will all benefit from its complete removal. It is a great delight to me that this clause appears in the first big education Bill of this Labour Government.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I want to look at special educational needs, but I hope that my remarks will differ from his rather more than those of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Apart from that allusion to any work from Lewis Carroll, I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord because he does it so much better than anyone else in the House.
I come now to the question of clarity about delegated funding for special educational needs. In its report of 1997 dealing with the years 1996 to 1997, Ofsted, reporting on the special educational needs code of practice two years on, states that,
In their first report on the Implementation of the Code of Practice, Ofsted identified weaknesses in the reporting on the funding of SEN in the governors' annual report to parents. In their latest report they say that the situation has not improved.
Some LEAs do now publish an expected level for SEN expenditure within the delegated budget. This is usually expressed as a percentage of the headcount money allocated through the Age-Weighted Pupil Unit and a percentage of the additional educational needs element in the school's budget. This is helpful in providing a benchmark (not a ring-fenced allocation) and provides a starting point for discussions between schools and the LEA about what individual schools do actually spend.
Unless schemes for delegation and information about them make it clear both what is in the budget for SEN and what a school's anticipated expenditure on SEN might be, there will continue to be confusion about what is the school's responsibility and what is the LEA's. Parents are caught in this confusion when schools say to them that they do not have enough money in their budget to provide a particular level of support, but the local education authority says to the parents that the school does have that money.
There is a related need for the LEA to monitor the school's expenditure on SEN. This needs to be done in a standard way across all schools. Does the Minister consider that proper frameworks exist between schools and LEAs for monitoring how the delegated budget is used to meet special education needs?
The provision of support services appears to be closely and inversely linked to levels of delegation. The more pressure there has been to delegate, the less local education authorities have been able to meet the need for Stage 3 input for support services. This issue is particularly acute in respect of Stage 3 support for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties.
The Special Education Consortium, which has advised me in the matter, is aware that in one LEA a behaviour support service that was delegated to schools would have disappeared in the next financial year if the LEA had not taken it back out of the delegated budget. Not enough schools, all of them under their own budgetary pressures, were buying back into the service. The short-term funding that local authorities have sought through GEST or urban regeneration programmes disrupts the continuity of services and weakens their value to schools. Yet where LEAs do provide support services for children with EBD, there is the potential to reduce both referrals for statutory assessment and levels of exclusions.
My final question to the Minister is this. Does she consider that in general LEAs are retaining sufficient funding at centre to provide the services that can help schools to meet special educational needs?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, coming at the end of a long list of distinguished speakers, I am sure noble Lords will be thankful that I shall not go through every single aspect of the Bill. I wish to start by indicating that I am concerned about the Bill because, apart from indicating in 42 clauses increased powers for the Secretary of State, this Bill is remarkably coy about the detail of its intentions. The Government talk of standards but nowhere more so than in relation to governors, as well as the LEAs. The Bill is full of structures, as both my noble friend Lady Blatch and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said. It is full of bureaucratic commitment and places extra burdens on schools.
In my remarks this evening I wish to refer directly to governors and their role. The booklet, Guidance on Good Governance, published in 1997 by the DfEE, was the product of a working party composed of representatives of education officers, the Churches, head teachers, governors and governor trainers. It set out five main areas of governor responsibilities: to deal with the curriculum--policy, delivery, monitoring; staffing--the numbers required, appointment procedures, selection of heads and deputies, conditions of employment, pay
However, the new Bill envisages additional requirements for a number of governors within the system. They are to represent parent governors on education committees; to fill appointments to education action zones; and to fill additional governor places in failing schools. Above all, the composition of every governing body of a community school is to be increased by at least one. In the case of primary schools with between 100 and 600 pupils, the increase will be five.
I hear many reports of schools which are unable to hold parent governor elections because of the lack of candidates and of LEAs unable to fill all their places. Indeed, in a school of which my husband is a governor, two LEA places have remained unfilled for some time since last year. The need to find extra governors will obviously add an additional strain. I understand that it would mean up to 4,000 extra governors. Where will those governors come from?
The requirements for increased consultation with LEAs, with parents and with staff, imply--though it is not acknowledged--increased workloads for governors. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, back in his place because he paid great credit to the role that governors play. I wish to reinforce that. I remind the House that governors are not paid, they receive no attendance allowance, and in most schools they do not claim expenses. The Government have fallen into the trap of assuming that therefore their involvement has no cost implications. That is simply not true. Many governors are employed, many are self-employed. Particularly when meetings, consultations, disciplinary hearings and training sessions take place during normal working hours, someone has to bear the cost of their attendance. For example, the home-school agreement will be likely to cost every school in the land a minimum of one-and-a-half hours for three governors in a sub-committee, a further 10 to 20 minutes for the full governing body, and preparation time for staff on the management team, input from the secretarial function and the cost of reprographics. In his excellent maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned the home-school agreements.
All the extra regulations will put additional burdens on governors in order to produce something which many governors feel, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing said, is already honoured by the 97 per cent. of pupils who behave properly within the bounds of their school and the curriculum. I do not know to what extent a written agreement will bring those who do not into the fold.
The Government have promised to use the moneys saved by abolishing the assisted places scheme--and we on this side of the House are very sorry to see that happen--in order to reduce class sizes. However, the Institute of Public Finance, in its report, The Cost of Reducing Infants' Class Sizes, calculated that there will be a need for a further £250 million in funding. That reflects an extra £100 million for capital spending and the extra money required to pay the teachers needed to
Finally, I have three questions on a matter of detail. Clause 13 refers to the disapplication of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act in education action zones. Those are to be set up for three years and may be extended to five. What does the Minister envisage will happen to the salaries of teachers who have been paid above the standard scale when the zone ends? Will they go on protected rates? If so, from where will those extra funds come? In the same way, if schools decide to opt out, will that position continue?
Those are just a few items that I picked up from this huge Bill. It is full of bureaucracy, structures and a certain amount of confusion. But a huge extra responsibility is placed on schools and governors. We look forward to taking part in the forthcoming stages.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, this has been a long debate but, as is usual in your Lordships' House, we heard original and humorous contributions as well as informative ones. I particularly enjoyed the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Hattersley. They were an education in how to raise controversial issues in a non-controversial way.
I also greatly enjoyed the original contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. It reminded me of my childhood watching him when he performed on stage many years ago. I found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Peston--not for the first time in this House. The Minister gave a good introduction to the key areas of the Bill and it became apparent as the day wore on that many noble Lords agree that the intentions of the Bill are good. I should like to draw attention to five points.
First, I wish to refer to the raising of standards through partnership and co-operation, with particular attention being paid to failing schools and failing pupils. Many of us acknowledge that strife and conflict have, for far too long, dogged the lives of all key players in education in our country today. Secondly, I want to refer to the aim to reduce class sizes. As a teacher I have never subscribed to the research that purported to show that class size had nothing to do with the attainment of children. I taught in schools and know that those children who found life difficult achieved so much more when there were only 17 in the class learning maths than when there were 30. Nobody will convince me otherwise.
The other point I wish to raise is the wish to give local authorities a clear role in maintaining standards in our schools. I shall say a little more about that later. My fourth point concerns the aim to put standards before structures. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when discussing this issue, used the phrase "old Labour" and "new Labour". However, what comes to my mind sometimes with this Government is, "old Labour, new Tories". On that issue I felt the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, was extremely well put.
The fifth aim to which I wish to draw attention is that of building on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, particularly in the area of raising the status of teachers and the teaching profession. There are other matters which we on these Benches particularly welcome. As my noble friend Lord Tope said, we are pleased to see the back of nursery vouchers. We welcome planning and the expansion of early years education. It is no secret to noble Lords who follow what Liberal Democrats say on education that we would like to go further than the Government. We would like to see early years education from the age of three. We would like to look more carefully at the integration of early years education and childcare. In that respect I very much warmed to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.
As has been pointed out throughout the debate, everything is not so rosy when we look at the detail of the Bill. Sometimes there is a lack of clarity. We heard much as to whether we will be able to clarify the difference between aptitude and ability. Sometimes we have seen outright omission and sometimes I feel that we are seeing a continuation of practices which we believed this Government wanted to see the back of.
This Government in Opposition opposed Conservative centralisation and massive powers being given to individual Ministers. We have seen various estimates of the number of extra powers given to Ministers in the Bill and it is likely to be almost 100. I listened somewhat in disbelief therefore to some of the contributions to the debate. The change of government can be extremely confusing in such matters. The Labour Party in Opposition strongly criticised the Conservative Government for giving powers to Ministers--admittedly, they went a long way in giving 500 powers to Ministers in the 1988 Act. But the roles have now been completely reversed and the Conservatives now complain about the powers being given to Ministers.
As Liberal Democrats we would prefer a Bill which establishes the framework but has a government which provides the resources for those who work on the ground in education--the professionals--to get on with the job. For all the Government's intentions to consult and work in partnership, when it comes to the crunch they are almost terrified of giving away power and of putting their trust in those who work in our schools, our education authorities and sometimes in parents, governors and pupils themselves. It is my experience that if we trust people and put clear structures in place, we will be rewarded. I can recommend that to the Government. They have got themselves in deep water not only on this Bill, but also in other areas where their intentions are good, but they cannot give way to those intentions by giving away real power and trusting other people.
I turn to some of the omissions in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Tope said, we welcome the reintroduction of nutritional standards in schools. As someone who has been a governor of a first school, I am extremely upset that minimum space standards have not been reintroduced. To return to nutritional standards, I particularly welcome the ability of schools to provide free milk. I was a young mother in the days when the slogan was ringing around, "Maggie Thatcher, milk snatcher". I am disappointed that the Government have failed to recognise the importance of space in enabling schools to function well, particularly in this age of information technology and all that goes with it. It affects the ability of mainstream schools to provide for special needs children.
I say that from the experience of being a governor in a first school. We were fortunate to have a lot of space but that was because the middle school on the same site as us had been closed. That meant that we were able to integrate into our school children with special educational needs, particularly those who needed to be in a wheelchair or had other equipment. Children with special educational needs often need extra people to help them with their everyday requirements in the classroom.
Despite the fierce debates in another place, and despite the fact that many amendments were proposed, many areas of the Bill are still unclear and show perhaps a little confusion. On the proposals to limit class sizes, the Government seem to be dogmatic about the number 30 and perhaps do not quite understand the knock-on effect that may have, particularly in rural areas and for siblings. Other noble Lords have illustrated this point very clearly. We are concerned about the need for flexibility when trying to have minimum class sizes and we are concerned whether there will be sufficient funding to carry this out. The proposals will often mean extra classrooms and extra teachers. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, had great faith that her government would produce enough resources. My past experience shows me that, however good their intentions, they may find that difficult, particularly when one bears in mind the predictions we have seen so far.
In debates in another place it also became clear that there was a lack of clarity surrounding the role of local education authorities. The different contributions we have heard today perhaps show that the role is not clear in the Bill. They have varied from people who think that far too much power will be given to local education authorities, to other people who think that not enough power will be given to local education authorities. My reading is that there is not a great deal of difference legally in the powers that will be given to local education authorities and it seems to me that many noble Lords did not understand what some local education authorities are doing today. The very best ones do have education plans, they do assist teachers in schools and they do try to develop new and innovative ideas. Local education authorities want a clear job description--that is only reasonable--and we shall return to that matter at a later stage.
Similar problems surround the responsibilities of head teachers, LEAs and governors, a point ably put by my noble friend Lady Byford. There are also problems in setting budgets--problems of consultation between governors and head teachers and how they are to be involved. But, oh dear, when it comes to selection, I just come to the conclusion that the Government have fudged on this issue. They said one thing in opposition and they are saying another thing now. What are foundation schools if they are not grant-maintained schools under another name? We have consistently made it clear that there is a role for local education authorities. We want it to be a light touch from local education authorities and we want to give as much power as is reasonable to individual schools. In this respect I very much agreed with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, who clearly has a great deal of experience in that area.
We, as Liberal Democrats, very much believe in local decision-making and local accountability. That is very important when it comes to school status, selection and admissions. My noble friend Lord Tope referred to these matters in his opening comments and I am sure that we
I was educated in a private school until I was 11. I then went to a grammar school. After that I went to a teachers' training college. The very first course at that college looked at how we should provide for children with special educational needs. In my whole education up to that point I had never really come across that. At that point I realised that I had led a sheltered life. I did not know of the great variety of human beings who made up our society. At that point I determined that whatever education I gave to my children they would not end up in the same position as I did. With that in mind I made sure that my children went to a school which gave them some idea of who lived in their community. I believe that that is the best education in citizenship one can give to our young people today in order that they understand how they fit into the society.
I taught in a secondary school which became a comprehensive school while I was there. It is possible to keep up those standards and to make sure that the children are not separated and that they do not feel they are always failing. My experience is that children who fail academically can often succeed in music and in art. Mixed ability groups for those subjects mean that all children can be given the opportunity at some point in their school life to succeed. That is what all teachers and all educationists should be troubled to do.
There will be further debates on the Bill, but I want to conclude by talking about what I think will be the underlying principles for those on these Benches. We want to see true partnership which ensures that all the relevant players are consulted. We want to see real accountability. We see that as best done through democratically accountable bodies. I know that some professional bodies are also worried about these issues. We want to see sufficient resources to enable key players to get the back-up they require to raise standards. We are worried about restrictions on local action. We think that local action should be interfered with only where it is necessary to raise standards. We want to see greater flexibility surrounding the proposals on class sizes and we want a proper framework for the creation of education action zones, particularly the ability to withdraw from them.
Most noble Lords had positive things to say. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was perhaps the most negative in her contribution, followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, accused us of agreeing with everything the government of the day do. I do not think she can have read of the haranguing that was given to the Government in another place by my honourable friends Don Foster and Phil Willis. As my noble friend Lord Tope said, we will be a constructive opposition. That means that you praise where you think things are good and you say where you agree with things, but we will vigorously oppose where we disagree. That is something which, in the short time I have been here,
We have been consistent in what we believe on these Benches. I am not sure that I can say that at all times for noble Lords on the other Benches. We want the best educational opportunities for all our children. Raising standards for all will do more to help the problems of school admissions than many of the bureaucratic matters that we shall discuss in this Bill, which says that partnership is the way forward. It is in that spirit that we shall debate this Bill at its future stages.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, the Minister will gather that there is some disagreement and worry on this side of the House as regards her Bill. So, before I get on to the rather more argumentative matters, I would like to say two things on which we can all agree. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Hattersley and Lord Dearing, on their splendid maiden speeches. They also know now what an arduous business it is if one gets involved in education in this House. Further, I believe that noble Lords on all sides support my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in hoping that the Minister will give special attention to children with special needs.
I now turn to other things. There was a statesman in France in the 17th century who was possessed of the highest of ideals. He wanted to make France rich and prosperous and, more especially, to ensure that it performed better than its near neighbours, England and Holland. His method was to use the power of the state. He expressed it in detailed regulations, achievement targets, local committees, integration groups and overall plans. His name was Colbert and he failed. England and Holland, following more pragmatic policies, were more successful.
I am prepared to accept that this Bill starts with the best of intentions. I am assuming that its authors want to improve English education. But no one can doubt that its methods are those of detailed regulation, many committees and a multitude of overall plans. My noble friends Lady Platt, Lady Brigstocke, Lady Cox and Lord Northesk, have all pointed out the dirigiste nature of the Bill. Many teachers--and I speak as one over 34 years--will spend more time on committees and drawing up forms than they will in the classroom. I need not dwell on the number of regulations that are going to be issued around the Bill.
Perhaps I may look at the education development plan. It is just the first paper on guidance. It has 29 pages; lovely little diagrams and sample forms which will take many hours to fill in. The educational development plans are to be a key element in educational advance. The bureaucracy involved in the plans is immense. Each local education authority must prepare a plan for three years, which must then be approved by the Secretary of State. In effect, these
The pattern for the plans will demand a great deal of form filling, much discussion at local level, committee meetings after school, meetings with the local authority and a lot more as well, and this for an already overwhelmed teaching profession in respect of which the Minister's honourable friend has said that he is going to reduce red tape. Wait until the members of that profession see this Bill and the regulations attached to it! Headmasters, instead of having the hands-on policy of running their school, will be chairing committees and running down to the city hall to discuss matters further.
I emphasise that this style of approach, as my noble friend Lord Beloff said, is in complete contrast with the policies of the previous government whose model for educational reform was the grant-maintained school. Noble Lords may laugh. They want to see the local authority writ large. But the grant-maintained school system, which we hoped would spread through large parts of the educational system, was designed to make the school responsible for its own money and its own staffing. It was to be freed from too much LEA bureaucracy and judged by league tables and rigorous Ofsted inspection. That was the model and this Bill is in complete contradiction to it. Therefore, we are justified in emphasising its bureaucratic nature.
The philosophy of the Bill is diametrically opposed to the policy of giving more freedom to schools. It is the complete opposite of that and its success will be judged on whether bureaucracy can achieve what the school cannot on its own.
Let us look at a further example of intense bureaucracy. I refer to the school organisation committee. There will not only be the education development plan. The area has to have an organisation committee which, as noble Lords know, consists of representatives of the local education authority, the Churches, the Further Education Funding Council and governors of various schools. I gather that there will be pressure on the Minister to ensure that some teachers and parents also serve on it. The draft regulations covering these bodies have not been given us. Getting draft regulations from this Government is like drawing teeth from a hippopotamus. They will never come, or not while we are discussing this subject in this House, unless we delay the Government.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the delicate issue of denominational schools. I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, got the point because that is where the numbers of 31, 32 and 33 matter. One cannot employ an extra teacher, but a devout person who wishes to go to the school of their faith will be refused because of the class size. Presumably, the school organisation committee might have to judge. One has then to decide whether a Church school will be allowed to expand. The school organisation committee has to judge. There are implications also for the finances of the Church since 15 per cent. of the capital cost has to be provided by the diocese. Suppose it has not got 15 per cent. There is an arena here for enormous dispute and expenditure of time.
So what happens when there is a dispute? There is the mysterious person called the adjudicator. We do not know much about him beyond the fact that he has a Latin name. He seems to me to have absolute power, subject to the Wednesbury rules, although, as the Minister knows, he would be subject to judicial review. His opinions or judgments have to be given in writing. I can see a marvellous opportunity there for litigation.
It is a tricky area as regards denominational schools. Let us suppose that on the school organisation committee the Church's representative had said that it did not want a reduction in numbers at the school. Once it goes to the adjudicator, unless the Minister decides to put on the face of the Bill protection for denominations, the adjudicator could overrule the Church. It is fortunate that this Bill does not apply to Scotland. Cardinal Winning has demonstrated in Glasgow that he is a doughty fighter when his schools are to be closed. Believe me, there are bishops in England who may do the same.
All over this Bill individual schools are subordinated to committees and plans. I do not believe that when teachers look at the Bill it will receive very enthusiastic support. Paradoxically, schools in the most deprived areas--the so-called worst schools where there are to be education action zones--are to be given more power. They can alter staff salaries and contracts, yet those powers have been removed from grant-maintained schools which are acknowledged to have performed well--well enough for a Prime Minister to send his children halfway across London to attend one of them. I endorse the criticisms made by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky about education action zones. When one deals with groups of schools the process is much more cumbersome and difficult. I hope and believe that we shall prepare amendments that allow individual schools to adopt this status.
After all this, the more successful schools do not receive support under the Bill. Grant-maintained schools become foundation schools and lose much of their independence. The 164 remaining grammar schools face the prospect of five-yearly ballots and their future is forever uncertain. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that I am amazed that there can be a functioning community only if there are comprehensive schools. For a party that loves Europe that kind of insularity amazes me. Germany, Austria, Holland and Switzerland do not have integrated schools. Do we have to say in true little Englishman style, "Come to us and we will show you how to be a community?" It is amazing that England appears to have this unique status that only comprehensive schools can make us like one another. It appals me.
We also have the funny business about aptitude and ability. I assume that that is put into the Bill because of schools that can admit on the basis of ability in certain subjects. How this is to be done I do not know. For example, if one takes science--physics, chemistry and biology--almost certainly one must have ability in maths. If one talks about ability in modern languages almost certainly one will have ability in English. At this stage one is selecting over five subjects or, in the case of a modern language, three. If that is not selection like a grammar school I do not know what is. No one can then stand up and say that one is restoring a comprehensive system when in reality one is trying by another route to have the assisted places that one got rid of in the state system. There is an illogicality.
I admit that there are good intentions in the Bill but, as one of my noble friends said, the road to hell is paved with such. What we have here are committee men rather than active teachers and hands-on headmasters. Its methods are those of French headmasters and mistresses. I am sorry but, seeing the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who always says that, for the moment I was carried away. Colbert failed to make France prosperous. Unless this Bill is extensively amended--the noble Baroness is aware that it will be--it will not achieve its ends. Our task on this side of the House is to save the Government from themselves. Once again they have fallen into the hands of the bureaucrats of the department. Be assured that the cavalry are on this side of the hill and will deliver them from their worst.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Hattersley and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for their excellent maiden speeches. My friendship with my noble friend Lord Hattersley goes back a quarter of a century. We have had many interesting debates about education over those years. I shall try to answer all of his questions. I begin with his question as to whether structure is intimately linked with standards. The answer to that question is that of course it is. Everything that I say in winding up the debate should reinforce that. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that we need to do all that we can to assist the 20 per cent. who have difficulty in succeeding in our education system, whether it be by reducing class sizes, helping small
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not answer all of the questions that have been put in this long debate. I shall try to focus on those matters that have come up most often in the debate. This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate on the issues covered in the Bill, and I look forward to the Committee stage and beyond. I was grateful for the general welcome that the Liberal Democrat Front Bench gave to the Bill. I am not sure that I liked the metaphor of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about facelifts for the ugly. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, have made much of their wish to see full sets of regulations. Whilst I shall not be tabling draft regulations, I have already sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, a number of documents on the specific elements of the Bill. I have also placed those documents in the Library. In doing so I have sought to be helpful to all Members of your Lordships' House. I hope that the significant amount of additional information on the provisions of the Bill has been and will continue to be useful throughout our discussions. I believe that a great deal more has been provided by the Government than was received by those who when in opposition took part in the passage of education Bills through this House. I clearly recall the Education Reform Bill in 1987-88.
It is just not true to suggest that this Bill contains an unprecedented number of powers to make subordinate legislation. It has always been recognised that many of the matters addressed in Education Acts are better dealt with in that fashion. There are some 70 such powers in the Bill. In the Education Reform Act, introduced by the party opposite, which was of similar length to this Bill, there are some 94 such powers.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page