House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Jan 1992

Column 1018

increasing interest in the efficiency with which resources are used in schools. It will be essential, as now, for the two bodies to co-operate and consult as they carry out their duties. But I see no reason for that to be set out in law and certainly not for HMCI to be made subordinate to the Audit Commission in that respect. That must have been the original view of the hon. Member for Blackburn. Paragraph 64 of his document "Raising the Standard" states :

"There should be consultation between the ESC and the Audit Commission about the transfer of appropriate staff and about where the dividing line between the work of the two Commissions should be precisely drawn."

That is a far cry from new clause 3, which would impose in statute the subordination of the HMI to the Audit Commission.

It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is making this up as he goes along. It seems that he drafted the new clause on the back of an envelope during a delayed railway journey between Blackburn and London when he had forgotten what was set out in "Raising the Standard". It is not often that we praise "Raising the Standard", but we think that he had it right before he scribbled new clause 3. There will, of course, be consultation between the two bodies. They will work out between them precisely where the dividing line should lie.

To show that we are not opposed to improvements to the Bill in the cause of encouraging efficiency, I commend Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27 and the corresponding amendments, Nos. 48 and 49, for Scotland. These amendments meet a point that was urged upon us by Opposition Members in Committee, which we undertook to consider further. It appears that the powers in clauses 16 and 17 do not extend to the collection and publication of information about efficiency in schools. That is a gap. When indicators are available through the work of HMI and the commission, we want to be able to include them in relevant publications. Inspection reports will cover quality, standards and efficiency, and so, as far as possible, should other publications.

I hope that the Opposition, on reconsidering the merits of their new clauses, will be able to give their full support to the Government amendments, which are designed to bridge a gap in the Bill to which they, the Opposition, drew our attention in Committee. Accordingly, I hope that new clauses 3 and 4 will be withdrawn and that Government amendments Nos. 26, 27, 48 and 49 will be accepted.

Mr. Eddie O'Hara (Knowsley, North) : I listened with interest to the Minister's response. It astounds me that the Government still do not understand, after the decade of disturbance that they have caused within the education system, that they are responsible for a veritable blizzard of "innovation". Whenever I speak on this subject I find myself searching for new and more adequate ways of describing what the Government have done. I have used various words, such as storm, wave and carousel, and tonight I have opted for blizzard. I feel for our hard-pressed teachers, who have the unenviable task of delivering education to our children in the face of the blizzard of "innovation".

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said, the pace of change is astounding. There is at least an administrative circular each day. One can imagine the amount of time that head teachers and teachers must spend reading the literature that is produced by the Government. It is no wonder that they have not

Column 1019

caught up with one change before they are overtaken by the next. It is not surprising that there is a crisis of morale in the teaching profession. The Government have failed to recognise the crisis but it has been researched. Warwick university undertook a study and concentrated especially on those who teach pupils of seven years and over.

8.15 pm

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I regret that the hon. Member is straying and I must draw his attention to the new clauses that we are considering. I invite him to address his remarks more specifically to them.

Mr. O'Hara : I shall do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am setting out the background to the new clauses. I have drawn attention to the crisis of morale among those who deliver education to our children. It has arisen because of the constant disturbance that they suffer in undertaking their task.

In deference to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall refer more briefly to the difficulties that face local authorities in managing their budgets as a result of the changes that the Government are introducing and the cuts that are being inflicted on local authority spending. The problems that are experienced in the local management of schools are shared by the schools themselves and local authorities. They are trying to share a cake that is too small to meet demand.

Surely the most pressing need is a period of consultation within the education system. We need a period of review and overview. We need to stand back and assess whether we are moving forward or merely spinning round and getting nowhere fast. We must determine whether we are moving fast but ineffectively.

For example, how much time are teachers able to devote to teaching? I have referred to the time that they must spend reading Government circulars. They have to spend time preparing and testing. Studies have shown that teachers of seven-year-olds are spending only about 42 per cent. of their time teaching. The rest of their time is devoted to other duties.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I regret having again to call the hon. Member's attention to the new clauses that are before us. The hon. Member has excellent parliamentary manners and I have never known him attempt to abuse the House in any way. I must ask him to convince me that he is speaking to the clauses, which relate to the powers of the chief inspectors for England and for Wales. He must address himself to the substantive matters that are set out in the new clauses.

Mr. O'Hara : I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure you that all my remarks are relevant to the new clauses. New clause 3 states :

"The Chief Inspector for England may, with the consent of the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales, promote or undertake studies in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in England."

If an overview, initiated by HMI in consultation with the Audit Commission, of the way in which teachers are spending their time in schools is not an examination of

"efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in England",

Column 1020

I do not know what is. What more expensive resource is there in this context than staffing costs? I am sure that we all want as much as possible of the money that is allocated to be spent on the teaching of children. There has been some limited research, but there is a crying need for the sort of study to which HMI has drawn attention repeatedly during its distinguished history. It is surely the best-equipped organisation to carry out that study.

We are told repeatedly when we complain about the allocation of resources to local authorities that they have surplus places in their schools and that if they were more efficient in eliminating them they would be able to allocate their resources more efficiently. Surplus places are not just a matter of space, not just a matter of square metres. There can be many reasons why surplus places cannot be taken out. For example, they may be on the wrong side of the main road. In the case of Church schools, of which I have a large number in my constituency, surplus places do not match conveniently the parish boundaries.

There is an educational as well as a financial dimension to the problem of surplus places. I hope that I have convinced you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that new clause 3 would enable the chief inspector for England, in consultation with the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales, to carry out such a study. Therefore, the two new clauses should be accepted so that tasks that Her Majesty's inspectorate are well suited to carry out can be carried out in the interests of good and efficiently provided education.

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : The two new clauses are particularly to be welcomed, not least at a time when entirely misconceived proposals are being considered by the

Conservative-controlled Brent borough council. They seem to be designed to close down schools in the southern part of the borough. I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on introducing the two new clauses. Some of my constituents have written to me only recently. One of those letters was written by Mr. Peter Herson of 73 Fortune Gate road, Harlesden, NW10. He writes with good cause about his concern, and that of many other parents who are in a similar position, about the public consultation document "Primary School Provision in Brent" that was recently published by the council.

If new clause 3 were to be given a Second Reading by the House, it would be possible to have an independent audit. Newfield school, like similar schools, is delivering the goods in terms of the quality of the education that it provides to pupils in my constituency. It has won praise from the inspectorate. It is geared to achieving the highest standards while at the same time ensuring efficient and cost-effective use of resources. That school is now threatened with closure.

I am opposed to the closure of Newfield school. The overwhelming majority of parents in my constituency who send their children to that threatened school are also opposed to its closure. They would welcome an independent report that would show just how well resources are being used in that school and just how well the needs and concerns of parents about the educational welfare of their children are being met.

It does not end there. The consultation document is misconceived. The Conservative chairman of the education committee, Mrs. Elisabeth Ormiston, has acted not like a bull in a china shop--

Column 1021

Mr. Pawsey : A heifer ?

Mr. Paul Boateng : No. I do not intend to go down the road that the hon. Gentleman urges me to go down. However, that lady acts like someone who has not considered the consequences of her actions. She has shown a singular lack of sensitivity in her approach to her job and in her willingness to close schools, regardless of the quality of education that they provide.

My borough is particularly proud of its standards of primary school education. They are being achieved despite the lamentable lack of financial support, at times, from the Department of Education and Science and the Department of the Environment, and despite the lamentable politicisation of education, spearheaded by the Conservative group on Brent borough council which is determined to take its lead from Conservative Members of Parliament and to engage in an absolutely deplorable form of social experimentation when it comes to the education of my constituents' children. We are sick and tired of--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not seek to breach our procedures or our Standing Orders. What he says is very interesting, but as far as I can see it does not relate to the new clauses that we are considering. May I ask him to relate what he has to say to the two new clauses, which I know he is interested in? Furthermore, we want to hear his views on them.

Mr. Boateng : Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was seeking to address my remarks precisely to new clause 3. Its value to the pupils and parents of Newfield school and Chamberlayne Wood school--also threatened with closure, which will be overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of parents in the borough who, particularly in the southern part, seek to exercise the widest possible choice and to make wise choices for their children--is that it would then be possible for an independent review to be carried out of the education provided for those children.

Mr. Fallon : I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument on new clause 3. Is it his position, and that of the Opposition generally, that the chief inspector for England, as proposed in the Bill--or his equivalent, as proposed by the Opposition--should have the power to intervene over the provision of school places and the proposal to remove surplus places? Does he want the chief inspector to have the power to challenge the decision of local education authorities?

Mr. Boateng : I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) has made it clear that that is not the case.

Mr. Pawsey : The hon. Lady has not spoken yet on this new clause.

Mr. Boateng : If my hon. Friend has not yet made that clear, I am sure that she will do so shortly, which will allay any suspicion that may linger in the mind of the hon. Gentleman as to our intentions.

Ms. Armstrong : I am amazed by the Minister's intervention. The Government's proposals for opting out have distorted the surplus places issue. What has happened in Brent is partly due to the idiotic policies that the Government have pursued. There are far more surplus places now than at any other time. That has come about

Column 1022

specifically because of the way that the Government have frozen proper reorganisation. We want a reorganisation that will provide parents with proper rights of consultation and independent rights of consultation. Again he cannot read. We produced another document on this last year and I invite him to read that. It deals specifically with the reorganisation of schools.

Mr. Pawsey : What is it called?

Ms. Armstrong : Off the top of my head, I cannot remember. [Interruption.] I do not understand why that should be an issue for derision. I cannot remember the name of every document. The document deals with reorganising schools properly in a way that would give an independent right of appeal to anyone with an interest in the school, be that person a parent, a governor or any member of the community. Mr. Boateng rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will now relate his remarks to the new clause.

8.30 pm

Mr. Boateng : I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. The Minister mentioned surplus places and I am only too happy to respond. I am concerned particularly about Newfield school. The position there emphasises the point made by my hon. Friend about the importance of consultation.

Newfield school's actual capacity is 201. In the consultation document issued recently in my borough its capacity is determined, wrongly, by the architects as 243. At present the school has 173 pupils in six classes, which leaves just one surplus place per class. Should a new family move into the area, with three children all of primary age, without the spare capacity Newfield school could not offer them all places. That is why we welcome the new clause. Mr. Fallon rose --

Mr. Boateng : The Minister will have his opportunity in a moment.

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to eat his dinner while sitting on the Front Bench?

Madam Deputy Speaker : I do not see any hon. Members having dinner or any form of refreshment. If they were, perhaps they would offer some to me.

Mr. Boateng : Whatever the Minister is chewing, it is as indigestible as the Bill that we are considering.

Mr. Fallon rose --

Mr. Boateng : In due course, please.

What I and my constituents are concerned about is that the chief inspector for England may promote studies to improve efficiency. With the consent of the Audit Commission he should be able to

"undertake studies in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in England."

Such studies would be welcomed warmly by the governors and teachers of Newfield junior, middle, and infant school which is threatened with closure. They would also be

Column 1023

welcomed by the parents, governors and staff of Chamberlayne Wood school, another school threatened with closure.

It does not end there. In being able to exercise those functions, the chief inspector could also draw the attention not only of my local authority but of local authorities throughout the country to the good work being done in William Gladstone school, yet another school in the London borough of Brent, under Conservative control, which is threatened with closure. Overwhelmingly among staff, parents and in the constituency there is opposition to closure.

Before sitting down, I invite the Minister to meet me and other hon. Members who are concerned about the reorganisation of primary education in my borough and about the closure of William Gladstone school. Excellent work is being done in primary schools in the borough of Brent and in William Gladstone school. That work would contribute to the study which the chief inspector would have power to make under new clause 3. We should like the opportunity to make representations to the Minister. Will he meet us to discuss the problems of primary schools in Brent and of William Gladstone school, which is also facing closure? That is a challenge to the Minister ; I look forward to him taking it up.

Mr. Flannery : New clause 3 is the same as new clause 4 except that it applies to England while new clause 4 applies to Wales. We have all met chief inspectors at various times. At that level the inspectorate is very much an independent body. Anything that would destroy its independence is alien to education. The inspectorate can say whatever it wishes, in an honourable way, to try to bring about changes not only in schools but in the organisational groupings which deal with schools.

Independent reports began only a few years ago. To his credit, it was a Conservative Minister who introduced them. Those reports can be uncomfortable for a Government and for an Opposition. We want enough money for the inspectorate to promote or undertake studies. What does that mean? It means that the inspectorate could initiate courses to try to do something about what is happening in schools. When we want the chief inspector to undertake work

"in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness",

we mean that schools should be used at weekends to provide in-service training.

In our city we had a teachers' centre. Not as an architect, but as a teacher, I was one of the people who planned it. It was one of the first. Some of us travelled the country to try to find out about it. It was in Melbourne house. In fact, it was outside there that the ripper was caught. We were very worried because many women teachers went along a rather dark road to the teachers' centre.

That teachers' centre has gone. it is now part of the girls' high school, a private school. The school has enough money to keep it going, but we had not. As a result we have lost the in-service training and teachers' meetings which took place there. I hope that, as a result of inspections and discussions, an inspector, independent of the Government, would be disturbed about that. I hope that, if that were brought to the notice of a chief inspector, he would want

Column 1024

to initiate studies into what was happening to teachers' centres throughout Britain. Such studies would induce efficiency and promote economy. It is necessary for us to have teachers who are surplus to immediate requirements in schools to free other teachers to go to the teachers' centres and similar places to study education further. The Scottish system of education is wholly different from ours. It is a very fine system and I hope that one day the two systems will come much closer together. The National Union of Teachers in England and the Educational Institute of Scotland are close to each other already.

Mr. O'Hara : Does my hon. Friend agree that another study might concern a subject of topical interest--the seven-plus test? HMI would be well placed to carry out a long-term study of the experience of nursery education and its effect on children's progress to assessment at age seven and further up the age range.

Mr. Flannery : I am sure that such a study would be one of many that would improve "efficiency, economy and effectiveness" in the education system. During my lifetime in teaching, the task of the inspectorate has been to bring to the notice of Governments in a civilised way how they can promote efficiency in the schools by whatever methods, and how they can initiate methods, including the teacher at the chalk face, to make our system better. That is why we tabled new clauses 3 and 4.

The new clauses would give the chief inspector himself or herself--I hope that one day it will be herself--the power to initiate research on aspects of education which he or she deems to be worthy of such attention. Although the aim is to promote economy, such research requires money. Education cannot be done on the cheap, and nobody knows that better than HM inspectorate.

I have met HM inspectors on many occasions and have found them a most civilised group. Teachers have found that the breadth of their approach to education has often contrasted with that of the local inspectors who, no matter how willing and able, do not have the knowledge of HM inspectors who travel round the whole country. Inspection must be intended primarily to assist the development of education institutions, whether primary and nursery schools or in the secondary sector, and to dispense information on policy decisions for effectiveness in the management of schools.

The Secretary of State is not an educationist and he needs advice. That advice will come from an independent inspectorate. It may sometimes be unpalatable to the Secretary of State, whoever he is. From my experience on the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, I know that Secretaries of State--not just the present Secretary of State--often lack knowledge of education, no matter how high-powered they may be. The chief inspector, his inspectorate and the teachers will not lack knowledge of education. We want the inspectorate to convey to the Secretary of State and to others involved in education the fact that they have noticed aspects in schools that need attention. There should be gatherings of teachers or those who run the education system to consider what has gone wrong.

The inspectorate put out a document entitled, "The Implementation of the Curriculum Requirements of ERA". It stated that in primary schools, there were

Column 1025

"too few micro-computers, inadequate or outdated library collections, a lack of good quality books and shortages of some items of basic equipment for mathematics and physical science." One would expect Government action to flow from such a report when such criticism had been made by the inspectorate. We want the chief inspector to have the right to make such reports. The document said of secondary schools :

"about three-quarters of the schools visited expected problems in staffing Key Stage 4. Shortages were predicted in a significant number of schools for every national curriculum subject except PE". Such reports go to the Government and we want the chief inspector to be able to promote efficiency and economy, as we have said in the new clauses.

8.45 pm

The annual report of HM senior chief inspector of schools for 1989-90 stated :

"In many primary schools, the lack of non-teaching time for class teachers remains a serious obstacle to effective planning and preparation of work."

The report pointed out that inefficiency flows from certain matters in school. The inspectors have also said that schools are crumbling and that buckets wait for the water. I should expect the inspectorate to convey such information to a Secretary of State--especially this one. Until recently, he had not even visited a school in his constituency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has often said.

The chief inspector must have a broader brief than that determined by the political interests of the Secretary of State. He must be able to stand up to a Secretary of State and to initiate developments without being dominated by him. Valuable comments such as those I quoted will not be forthcoming unless the inspectorate is independent and can initiate studies, as we have suggested in new clauses 3 and 4. We have made serious points, yet the Government take no notice of what is happening in schools. We are trying to get them to take notice.

Ms. Armstrong : I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Manoeuvrings are going on among the usual channels and my hon. Friend is continually called out to take part. I suspect that that is why the Secretary of State is also absent.

We are debating a critical aspect of the Bill, and I listened with care to the Minister. I was far from convinced that he had understood what we are trying to achieve through new clauses 3 and 4. I was also far from convinced that he had taken on board the issue of school effectiveness which we pushed in Committee.

The Minister continues to assert that the issue of how the national inspectorate will undertake its duties is being stirred up by the Opposition. He believes that quality is not an issue. We are very concerned that the method of inspection, other than through HMI, will be substantially flawed. We are also concerned by the severity with which HMI is to be cut down. The number of inspectors will be considerably fewer than at present.

We want a national inspection of schools, with an ability to enforce recommendations. We want to know whether what an inspection team says about a school in Northumberland, for example, being effective can be compared with a report of a similar inspection in, say, Norfolk or West Sussex. We hope that this aim is at the

Column 1026

heart of the Bill and that the Government want to introduce a system that will allow it, but we feel that the Bill will not achieve that. In the new clause, we seek to insert conditions which would enable the chief inspector to undertake comparable studies in different parts of the country ; this would lead to the national protection of standards that we feel is absolutely critical. When I worked in a polytechnic, HMI inspected the course on a regular basis and worked with it, and I was able to talk to individual inspectors over many years. They felt that a critical part of their expertise was their knowledge of what went on in different parts of the country. Although individuals inspected individual institutions, the inspectorate as a whole covered the country. Inspectors discussed their findings and no report was written on any institution without the involvement of other members of the inspectorate. One of our concerns is that, under the proposed system of inspection, that would not happen.

There is another aspect. Under the proposed system, school inspections will take place in a well-heralded way. They will take place when the school asks for them to take place, and they will be well organised beforehand. While most of HMI's inspections are of that regular nature, one of its important methods of operation has come from its power to drop in when it wants to and not when an institution invites it. In this way, inspectors sometimes see things that they would not see if they announced their visits well beforehand or were invited to come.

That is what gives us confidence that at present HMI can maintain a national perspective and acquire wide experience which enables its members to judge whether something is working well. The new clause would enable the inspectorate to promote and undertake studies of efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in both England and Wales. We are critically concerned with school effectiveness, how a school enables a child to progress. It is the way in which the school ensures that every child makes progress that is the measure of its effectiveness. It is not simply an outcome, it is the progress that a child makes in the school. We particularly want HMI to be able to consider and monitor that.

Mr. Steinberg : My hon. Friend will be aware of the report commissioned by the National Union of Teachers from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte--"The Cost of Implementing the National Curriculum in Primary Schools". The report, from what no one can deny are leading management consultants, estimated that the average recurrent costs of the national curriculum would be something like £671 million per annum over the first five years, plus start-up costs of £1,263 million. If the new clause were accepted, inspectors could, on the basis of such information, examine schools to see where resources were necessary, what schools were missing out on and what was needed in the way of extra teachers, equipment and so on. The report, which is a wide-ranging one, gives that information, and this is the type of information that the new clause would allow the inspectors to encourage in schools.

Ms. Armstrong : My hon. Friend makes a telling point.

We must know the effect of legislation not just on an individual school but across the educational system. The inspectorate has been severely pared, yet it has been given new powers so that its work load will increase rather than

Column 1027

decrease. Training is very much in my thoughts and is important to me. I should have thought that training alone would make sufficient work for the number of people that the inspectorate will have to train, yet training will be only a small part of HMI's functions. The new clause would give the inspectorate, through the chief inspector, the right to look at school effectiveness, and to commission from others studies that would allow it to look at effectiveness across the system.

The Minister failed to recognise that earlier when he tried to rubbish the clause. It is precisely because the Bill fails to cover this point and is weak on monitoring standards across the system that we want the new clause accepted. I constantly live in hope. I live in hope as regards the Government and look to whatever better feelings they may have. While not being too optimistic, therefore, I hope that the Minister will reconsider and accept the new clause and the one relating to Wales, as we accept the amendments that the Minister tabled in respect of the other clauses. We do not object to them.

Mr. Steinberg : The introduction of the Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte report states :

"The National Curriculum, introduced by the 1988 Education Reform Act and progressively implemented by Statutory Order from the date of the Act, is having wide-ranging consequences for the way in which schools structure the educational experience of their pupils. These consequences are widely perceived to include :

increased demands on teachers' time, which must be addressed either by appointing further staff or by informally expecting staff in post to work longer hours

changes in maximum class sizes, particularly for practical work, which again has implications for teaching staff

increased resource expenditure as heads and governors equip [or re- equip] their schools to meet the curriculum demands

increased staff training for teachers

and possibly new training needs for Governors also,

changes to the balance of the curriculum between different subjects and activities."

That is a grand assessment of what the national curriculum has meant since it was introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988. New clauses 3 and 4 would give the chief inspector the power to initiate research into aspects of education deemed by him or her to be worthy of that study. They would allow chief inspectors to investigate the problems highlighted by the independent report carried out by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte.

If the national curriculum is to be successful, we should know what resources are needed. My colleagues and I fully support the national curriculum, but if it is not resourced, it will be of no value to the educational system.

9 pm

If HMI cannot initiate research into aspects of the national curriculum and its resources, we will not know whether the curriculum is working. I hope that the Minister will consider the new clauses seriously and not rubbish them as he did earlier.

If new clauses 3 and 4 are accepted, we should be able to discover, over several years, whether the national curriculum was working and whether more resources were needed. The Government always shudder when they hear the word "resources". They believe that the schools and education are being resourced. However, over the past few years, education spending, in real terms and as a proportion of GNP, has decreased. If the national

Next Section

Home Page