|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): We are determined to encourage more young people from lower income backgrounds to enter higher education. We want to improve staying-on rates and to raise attainment levels in schools, but we have also committed more than £190 million to the excellence challenge programme, to raise the aspirations of young people in some of the most deprived areas of the country. The Higher Education Funding Council is also providing significant additional fundingabout £180 million in 200203for widening participation.
Tony Wright: I am grateful for that answer, but is not the difficulty that, although participation rates as a whole have increased, participation of the poorest economic groups has actually declined? That shows that we are getting something wrongperhaps aspects of the student finance arrangements, as the Audit Commission has pointed out. Can the Minister assure us that, when the results of the student finance review are published, that issue in particular will be tackled? Can she also confirm that the review will not be determined simply by the needs of the Treasury?
Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend raises a really important point that I have often alluded to in the House. Although we have increased the number of young people entering higher education, the gap between the number of entrants from higher and from lower income groups has not narrowed. If we are serious about social inclusion, we need to tackle that problem. My view has always been that there are three strands to this issue: achieving better attainment levels at school by encouraging people to stay on, getting young people to aim higher, and getting the student funding regime right. We are tackling all three strands to ensure that those from low-income families are not deterred from attending university because of debt, or the fear of debt.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): May I suggest to the hon. Lady that, regardless of the results of the review, the obvious answer is to reintroduce maintenance grants? That is the problem that is holding us back.
Margaret Hodge: That might be the hon. Gentleman's view, but mine is that the issue is much more complicated than that. Raising attainment levels and aspiration levels are difficult matters. I again draw the House's attention to a survey that showed that 44 per cent. of young people in the three lowest socio-economic groups never think of university as an option during their school years. That means that they are not encouraging themselves to aim higher, and nor are their friends, families, teachers or career advisers.
Margaret Hodge: I certainly feel that the experience of sending one's own children to school adds hugely to one's understanding of the issue, and I must say that I would never have denied my four children the privilege of a state education. I also recognise the importance, as my hon. Friend says, of ensuring proper further education opportunities for our young people throughout the country. We will settle the issue of student funding as soon as a proper, sustainable system is in place. The issue must be seen in the context of all the things that we want to do in educationincluding in further education.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): Does the Minister accept that many families have no history whatever of participation in further and higher education, and that as a result no member of such families is able to act as a role model and give advice? Does she agree that more universities could adopt schools in socially deprived areas? Through the links thereby developed, they would remove apprehension and encourage youngsters with potential to realise it in full by applying for a university place.
Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important and pertinent point. It is important that universities move away from their traditional practice, which was simply to wait for applications to come to them. They must go out and engage with the community, and particularly with young people who have not considered university as an option and whose parents probably did not go to university. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that through the excellence challenge programme, we are seeing a sea change in the way in which universities are responding. Every time I visit a university, I am shown the links that they are establishing with young children at school. It is never too soonwe can start at the age of 11, 12 or 13to raise the aspirations of talented young children in our schools.
John Cryer (Hornchurch): My hon. Friend will be aware that the number of students studying the sciences, particularly chemistry and physics, is woefully low. Is it not plain that the abolition of maintenance grants was a disincentive to youngsters from poorer backgrounds entering higher education in the first place? If they do enter higher education, they tend to do courses that lead to higher paid jobsit is fairly widely recognised that doing science will not lead to highly remunerated jobs. Is not the reintroduction of grants the answer?
Margaret Hodge: There is no evidence to suggest that young people from lower income backgrounds are choosing not to go to university because of the funding system. We are proactive in this matter because we want to reduce the participation gap. Furthermore, although there is a decline in the number of people going into
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Encouraging high aspirations on the part of poor children is laudable; no one would deny that. But is it not particularly tragic that Her Majesty's Government's education policies have militated against those children achieving their aspirations? Is it not true that abolishing the assisted places scheme and making it harder for good grammar schools to maintain selective systems have damaged the chances of poor children? Would it not be absolutely fatal if universities were to skew their admission standards from an impartial assessment of scholarship?
Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman ought to look at the facts which reveal that not many young people from working class backgrounds took advantage of the assisted places schemes. I would be happy to share that information with the hon. Gentleman if he so wishes. Since the Government have been in office, attainment levels have risen among 11-year-olds and 16-year-olds through to 18-year-olds and entry to university. The Government want to ensure that our brightest and best kids get opportunities at all universities. We are asking the universities to ensure that they have sophisticated means to hunt out the best, and many are doing this of their own accord. We want an intellectual elite, not a social elite.
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): It is vital that we tackle both truancy and bad behaviour in schools. In the past five years, we have invested more than £600 million to support teachers in dealing with bad behaviour and tackling truancy. Earlier this month, we allocated a further £66 million of funding to targeted local education authorities to pilot our long-term strategy on improving behaviour and attendance.
Caroline Flint: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the introduction of pupil referral units, which give many children who have been excluded or are frequent truants the chance of an education. However, my right hon. Friend will know that parents are part of the problem. In the Banbury case, one of the excuses used over two years about why a daughter was not in school was that a dog ate her trainers. I heard of an excuse used by a local parent after a week's half-term holiday. When the education welfare officer called round, she was confronted with the
As we have found in Doncaster when truancy sweeps are held, many of the truants are found in the company of a parent, with no valid excuse. When visits are made to homes, parents have no valid excuse for why their child is not in school. However, the truancy teams have no powers to return a child to school if he or she is in the company of a parent. Can we strengthen the law in that regard?
Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are to tackle the problem of truancy, we have to demand that parents work with schools. We cannot ask everything of teachers, nor can we blame schools for all the ills of society. The schools that have been successful have worked carefully with parents, and my hon. Friend gave good examples. She may be interested to hear that in the past four weeks we have held truancy sweeps in more than 230 places, mainly in urban areas. We funded the police to work with education welfare officers and more than 600 children were returned directly to school. For the parents who were with the other childrena sizeable numberthe message was clear: "This is not on. Get your child in school and give teachers and schools a chance."
Colin Burgon: In Tuesday's debate on discipline in schools, I was able to raise the issue of Team Teach, which is a programme that attempts to equip teachers with the necessary verbal and physical skills to confront difficult situations. Will my right hon. Friend evaluate that scheme and, if she thinks that it is of value, will she ensure that it is rolled out to all the secondary schools to which it would be applicable?
Estelle Morris: I am interested to hear about that scheme, because I do not know about it. I will certainly evaluate it. If it proved to be a good project, we would make it available to schools so that they could choose whether to implement it. The point that my hon. Friend makes about training teachers is important. For too long, teachers could train to be teachers without any guidance on how to enforce discipline in schools. Children cannot learn unless their classroom is well ordered. Therefore, my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that we will ensure that every teacher who completes training has had a sound grounding in how to maintain discipline in schools. Indeed, the project that he mentions could be used in initial teacher training as well for continuous professional development.
Mr. John Baron (Billericay): The latest Ofsted report has clearly stated that poor behaviour by a minority of pupils is the major reason for teachers leaving the profession, and in recent written answers the Government admitted that they do not know how many teachers and pupils are attacked by other pupils. When will the Government discover the scale of the problem so that they can deal effectively with it?
Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman calls for us to collect information, and earlier in the week during the Opposition day debate, a Conservative Front Bencher said that we should collect data on children's violence against
We collect reasons for exclusion, so if the hon. Gentleman wishes to find out how many exclusions are because of violence towards teachers, he can do so. Without checkingso I am a little cautious about the figuresthe number of such incidents has fallen slightly in the past year. However, I make nothing of that and I do not claim it as any improvement. It is important to collect data, as we do on exclusions, but we do not want to demand of schools that they collect data and return them to a host of organisations after every incident of child violence. We would sooner spend our resources, time and effort on supporting teachers in trying to eradicate that behaviour. That is the key to raising standards.
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge): Will the Secretary of State look at the excellent initiative launched by Devon and Cornwall police with all the local authorities to stop truancy in the two counties? In so doing, will she hold discussions with the local authority in Devon and perhaps look at some of the work carried out in some Devon schools? Vyv Game, the deputy principal of Exmouth community collegethe largest school in Devonsaid:
Estelle Morris: My starting point is that it is crucial to get children in school and to keep them there to enable them to learn. One thing I can guarantee is that if a child from a financially deprived home truants from school, that child will not learn and attain. All that happens is that the cycle of deprivation passes into the next generation and we never, never break it.
My starting point is that we should begin with support and cajoling; we should work with the parent and the child, try alternative forms of curriculum and as many innovative things as possible; but if, at the end of the day, the parent still does not accept their responsibility to send a child to school, we are faced with a decision. We must either turn our back, shrug and say, "There, let us condemn that child to a lifetime of poverty as well", or we take tough measures. Courts and others are right to take tough steps, but they are end of the road measures. In some recent cases, we have seen that they worked and that children are back in school and learning. At the end of the day, that is what we want.
Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North): May I inform my right hon. Friend that many schools in St. Helens face major discipline problems due to yobs trespassing on school premises? At present, that is not a criminal action. Will my right hon. Friend look into whether we can change the law to give our children more protection in school?
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): The Secretary of State has loyally given a following wind to the Prime Minister's latest headline grabbing gimmickwithdrawing benefits from parents of truantsand in the debate on Tuesday her hon. Friends talked about holding consultations to work out whether that would be practical, so why was I told, when I tabled a question to her Department on the subject, that any consultation would be undertaken by the Department for Work and Pensions?
Estelle Morris: Because child benefit is administered by the Department for Work and Pensionsthe answer is quite simple. In the name of joined-up governmentthat is what we areI am in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and when the consultation takes place, no doubt part of it will reflect the contributions made by my Department to that debate. The important thing is that we debate and consultI do not care two hoots about which Department that emanates from.
Kali Mountford (Colne Valley): Is it not the case that the presence of drugs in schools is a major impediment to overall discipline, and that young people in school who are under the influence of drugs, taking drugs or dealing in drugs are not in a condition to learn? They affect their own learning and that of others. Do not schools need to work with the police, local authorities and social and health services to deal with that matter? What are my right hon. Friend and her Department doing to help local education services and schools to tackle that particular problem?
Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is right. We learn quickly that we cannot protect schools from what is going on in the wider community. Often, schools are havenswell ordered and disciplined places; sometimes they are the most disciplined place in a child's life. However, we cannot always protect children from the activities of the neighbourhood so, sadly, my hon. Friend is right: there are incidents of drug taking and inappropriate behaviour in schools. There is no easy solution. That is why the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who has responsibility for young people and learning, held a seminar this week where we could gather together those people who are beginning to develop good practice and take it forward. Without going into that matter, my hon. Friend made one important point: this has to be about all the services coming together: police, social services, the health authorities and mentors as well as the education service. If we can get the expertise from all those professionals, we may stand a chance. On top of that, we may make progress with parental support. I do not underestimate the nature of the difficulties, but progress has to be made as the problem is a barrier to real social cohesion and advancement.