|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Earl Russell: My Lords, when I was reading the papers for this Motion I was reminded of a correspondence in the Times Educational Supplement in 1984 between Sir Alfred Sherman and Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was. They were discussing the failure to introduce a voucher system for school admission. Sir Alfred, in his usual pugnacious style, regarded that as a result of pernicious left-wing influence among the civil servants. Sir Keith, one of the most honourable men I have known, said that, first, they had convinced him by sheer rational argument that a complete market with a voucher system was incompatible with a universal service and, secondly, even if they had been wrong about that, he was responsible. He had taken the decision and Sir Alfred should have attacked him and not the civil servants. It was one of the more admirable letters that I have read.
But this potential clash between a market and a universal service is something which underlies a great deal of the debate tonight. We have on the one hand a sort of global market in schools set up by the Greenwich judgment. I have not forgotten the visit to Orpington during the last general election and listening to the problems caused by the number of Bromley children who could not attend any school to which they could travel because all the places had been taken up by people from outside the borough. How far one can have a global market without having any losers is a paradox which I do not believe market theory altogether solves.
We have a comprehensive system plus selection. That is another paradox. We have partial selection, which is a rather mulish form of paradox. It has a distinctly hybrid quality about it. For example, we have one school in the London Borough of Sutton which is partially selective. It is taking people from as far away as Brighton. That is setting up a sort of market in schools which is causing quite considerable difficulties for school admissions in Sutton. We wonder why it is insisted that interviews are still to be permissible for church schools, especially since the Church of England Board of Education, which my honourable friend has consulted, said that the Church saw no particular need for it and would be quite happy to let it go.
Again, there is a paradox as regards admissions in keeping up a combination of a universal school service plus the autonomy of each individual local school. I remember discussing these paradoxes during a number of education Bills introduced into this House by the noble Baroness. I am sure that she remembers them. We suggested then, as we do now, that moving away from a local authority responsibility for admissions was going to create a great many problems about where responsibility lay.
We could not have exactly what we wanted--one very rarely can in this world. On our Benches, we have reached a compromise with the Government that if we could not have a local authority responsibility for
However, looking at these paradoxes I cannot help but be reminded of the description of the religious policy of Henry VIII: that he was like one who would throw a man from the top of a high tower and bid him stay where he was when halfway down. We have had all these principles of school autonomy, markets and so forth introduced into the middle of what is still a universal service. I do not believe that they mix. I do not see that anyone on any Bench is yet ready to tackle the task of bringing logic back into the system. Attempts to bring logic back into education have always tended to involve imposing one particular philosophy which has not met acceptance from the next government. It is no wonder that people in education are suffering from what the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, once described as "innovation fatigue".
While we are thinking about these subjects, I also hope that thought will be given to the question of how much spare capacity we need in the school system. There is a casual reference at the beginning of the code of practice to reducing capacity in the name of efficiency. I hope that it will not be quite the same efficiency that has been applied to reducing the rolling stock on Virgin Railways, for example. There is a point beyond which efficiency is not efficient.
I also hope that some thought will be given to the implications of the Rotherham judgment, which says that a parent who has expressed a preference, even if it is the second, third, fourth or umpteenth preference, is to take priority over a parent who has not. That again is making it hard for people to gain admission to their own local schools.
I also believe that we need, and have always needed, to think about education admissions in the context of transport. That is something where joined-up government has yet to happen and I look forward to it. Effectively, the range of choices available to pupils is the range of choices between schools to which they can get transport. It is a particular problem in the London Borough of Bromley where the effects of the Greenwich judgment have been very severe indeed.
The noble Baroness pointed out that all this is extremely complicated to administer. So it is; I agree with her. The question is: first, how did we get here? I believe that the noble Baroness made some contribution to that. The second question is: how do we get out of it? If we were to decide that the system we have is now too hybrid to be really workable, which way are we going to alter it? Are we going to continue to have a market within a universal service? If not, the Greenwich judgment will have to be repealed. If the answer is yes, then many of these problems will continue. Are we going to have selection continuing within the comprehensive system? If we are the Sutton problems will continue.
As that does not seem to be a practical possibility, and as we do not intend to reopen a compromise that we have honourably and seriously reached, I do not want to make any further criticism but simply to suggest that we have problems and we must all think of a solution. Yes, it is difficult, but we have arrived here and we all have to take a share of the responsibility. The house is glass; the glass needs mending; but I do not think that we should be throwing stones.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government plan to bring this new admissions code of practice into force on 1st April. It will apply to admission arrangements for primary and secondary schools for September 2000 and beyond. The purpose of the code is to give vital practical guidance to local education authorities and schools. I should make it clear at the beginning that that guidance is not for parents, and, in turn, local education authorities will be asked to provide adequate advice and information for parents. The code will include five sets of regulations which are required to implement the new school admissions framework.
The five sets of regulations currently before Parliament are due to come into force from 1st April 1999 and it is crucial that the admissions code comes into effect at the same time. The code will have statutory force; so local education authorities, schools which are admission authorities, the adjudicator and admission appeal panels will have to have regard to the guidelines in the new code. In addition to the requirement--in initial year regulations which have been in force since 6th January this year--for them to consult upon and determine their admission arrangements by 1st April and 1st May 1999 respectively, they also need to make other essential preparations over the coming weeks for September 2000 admissions. The code must be in place from our planned date of 1st April to give those involved in the admissions process sufficient time to ensure that all their arrangements for school admissions from September 2000 can benefit from the guidance it contains.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have asked a number of specific questions. They have also made one or two more general points. I shall respond to the general point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that such arrangements are too complex for parents and schools to follow. Perhaps I do not need to explain this as I believe the noble Baroness is fully aware of it, but the arrangements are not for schools as a whole; they are for admission authorities; that means LEAs and a small minority of schools, those that are grant-maintained and will become foundations and voluntary-aided schools. We do not need to worry
The code sets out--fairly clearly, I think--for admission authorities what are the arrangements. Moreover, the Government have consulted on the code and have received many responses, the vast majority of which are extremely positive. The noble Baroness's suggestion that the schools are "in despair"--I believe she used those words--does not in any way bear out what the Government have found on the basis of that consultation.
The new framework should not place onerous burdens on schools. For LEA and voluntary-controlled schools where the LEA is the admissions authority, there will be no additional burdens, as consultation should already have taken place between the LEAs and their schools over proposed admission arrangements. The foundation and voluntary-aided schools will be required to consult other admission authorities in the area. I am now talking about the consultation burden on schools. Where a local admissions forum is established to form a consensus on admissions arrangements at a local level, LEAs will be responsible for ensuring that the forums receive the service support that they need.
The noble Baroness asked when the code of practice on admissions appeals will be available. A draft of the admissions appeals code of practice will be sent out for consultation after Easter. A final version of the code will be laid before Parliament in June and the code will come into effect, subject, of course, to Parliament, on 1st September 1999.
The noble Baroness also asked about the London Oratory School. Special school provision is covered by the existing partial selection regime referred to in paragraph 5.11. However, if there are objections to any of the London Oratory School's arrangements, they can be made to the adjudicator either by the local education authority in the area or by parents.
The noble Baroness also asked about the admissions authorities which admit pupils from other schools into sixth forms. Such authorities should publish an admission number for admissions from outside the school. They are required to publish an admission number at each normal year of entry.
The noble Baroness also asked about the 1998 Act permitting selection by ability to sixth forms, which is Section 92(2)(c). Again, such arrangements will be subject to statutory consultation and objection may be made to the adjudicator.
The noble Baroness mentioned possible confusion in a large area such as London. It is unlikely that any LEA will set a relevant area as wide as the whole of London--and it is the LEA, not the school, which sets the relevant area. I should have thought that in London it would be much more likely that a relevant area would comprise a London borough. In London, the boroughs are the LEAs. However, they will, of course, have to take into account the point that the noble Baroness rightly made that quite large numbers of parents in London do not send their children to school in the borough in which they live but to a neighbouring
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl referred to partial selection. The noble Earl mentioned selection within a comprehensive system. Our policies are well known and we shall deliver our commitment on this. We want to move forward, whereas I think--and I believe that the noble Earl suggested this--that there is a sense in which the Conservative Party wants to cling to some of the existing forms of selection which we believe are inequitable. We want a system that works in the best interests of all children and parents, not one that is confusing and divisive or which in any way restricts parental choice.
The noble Baroness also asked about ability and aptitude. Again, a modern education system should deliver high standards for all children within a framework which is sufficiently diverse to meet their individual needs. That is why the new admissions framework allows schools with a specialism in one or more prescribed subjects to have admission arrangements which allow that school to give priority to up to 10 per cent. of pupils on the basis of their aptitude for that specialism.
There is a distinction between "aptitude" and "ability". Indeed, the previous administration recognised that distinction. Aptitude has nothing to do with prior or current educational attainment. The code makes it clear that children who will be able to benefit from teaching in a specific subject or who have demonstrated a particular capacity to succeed in a subject can be regarded as having an aptitude for that subject. The aim is to enable the particular skills of a child to be matched with the particular strengths of a particular school. We want children who have the capacity to succeed in a particular area to have the opportunity to benefit from the facilities which particular schools with specialisms might have.
The noble Earl asked about the Greenwich judgment. It has never been possible to guarantee every child a place at the school of their choice, as I am sure that the noble Earl understands. Popular schools will sometimes have more applicants than available places. Reversing the Greenwich judgment would not alter the fact that popular, over-subscribed schools would not be able to admit all their applicants. Many parents would find it difficult to understand the rationale behind the resurrection of an artificial barrier to their choice. They would not see the justification behind the fact that although they live next door to a school, they cannot gain admission to it for their child because they are on the wrong side of the LEA boundary. There is no general body of support--
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page