House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Nov 1992

Mr. Byers : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to mislead the House ? Audenshaw grammar school is not in the Manchester local education authority area.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Matters of fact are not matters for the Chair, fortunately.

Mr. Coombs : I said that Audenshaw school was in Greater Manchester. Progress has been made at grant-maintained schools in areas of the country that one would not regard as wealthy, such as Small Heath school and Baverstock school in the middle of Birmingham. One must examine the views of parents who send their children to those grant-maintained schools.

Column 786

I shall give a few examples. Mr. Sultan Mohamed, whose daughter turned down a place at one of the city's grammar schools to go to Small Heath school, said that the reason why Small Heath school gave a thorough education was that

"the school belongs to the community. You automatically feel part of it. I like the home/school contract. It binds both parties into supporting each other."

Mrs. Pickerill, whose child goes to Baverstock school--the Labour party should listen to this--said :

"I used to be for the council. But it doesn't work. I've come right round. We've only taken back what's ours by right. Now we've made something of the school, much more than they ever did."

As has been shown by the paranoid reaction of the Labour party to the Bill and grant-maintained schools, it is curious that Labour Members should object to a meeting that I have arranged in my constituency on 27 November merely to give information to schools and parents on which they will be able to ballot. Such paranoia is shown by various Labour-controlled local education authorities, which, in the guise of giving objective information to schools that want to think about opting out and balloting, give schools biased information. Birmingham education authority gave what it called essential information on grant-maintained status and opting out to parents of children at Hampstead Hall school. The information said : "No existing grant-maintained school has been able to demonstrate that opting out has improved or maintained the educational standard of the school."

What absolute bunkum. The authority need only examine the improvements that have been made in Baverstock school and Small Heath school in its city.

In the past four years, examination results have doubled at Baverstock school and trebled at Small Heath school. Truancy at Baverstock school is 0.04 per cent. ; previously, it was appalling. Truancy at Small Heath school is only 1 per cent., which is considerably lower than the city average. In 1982, attendance at Baverstock school was 81 per cent. Under grant-maintained status, attendance is 95 per cent. at Baverstock school and 93 per cent. at Small Heath school. Under grant-maintained status, the number of staff at Baverstock school has increased by eight and a half and at Small Heath school by six. Baverstock school can now boast a sixth form of 92 pupils. Small Heath school has been able to reinstate its sixth form. Those statistics show the significant improvements that have been made in two inner-city schools that have changed to grant-maintained status.

I shall make some comments on other aspects of grant-maintained status. First, it is extremely important that the Education Assets Board makes a sensible decision about Great Barr school. If we are to encourage relationships among local education authorities, local authorities and, ultimately, grant-maintained schools, it is absolutely crucial that grant- maintained schools must not take assets with them in perpetuity.

Secondly, it is crucial for the Government to guarantee capital programmes for the schools that have achieved grant-maintained status. I have heard rumours in one of the major cities not too far from the west midlands that a deputy chairman of education has visited certain schools that are thinking of becoming

grant-maintained and said that the new roofing programmes would go by the board if the schools did something so stupid as to go grant-maintained.

Column 787

Thirdly, it is absolutely crucial to step head teacher training in not simply administration but management development at grant-maintained schools. I know that the Westminster college in Oxford and the community education development centre which is based in the west midlands are keen to help with such training. Fourthly, it is vital that we move to a system whereby all parents, irrespective of how obtuse and prehistoric their education authorities are, have the opportunity to ballot regularly on the grant-maintained schools option. I shall certainly table amendments to the Bill to allow that to happen.

In the Bill, there are significant advantages in respect of statementing. In my own local authority of Hereford and Worcester, one girl was asked for a statement on 23 March 1991. She is dyslexic. A week ago, I heard from her mother, who said, "I regret that I'm no further forward with the LEA, who are still procrastinating." I hope that the special education procedures within the Bill will be amended so that time limits are laid down to ensure that local education authorities act expeditiously.

I welcome the parts of the Bill that relate to religious education and the ethos of schools. I should have liked the Bill to take up the measures suggested by the children's legal centre, putting into effect much of Lord Elton's report on discipline in schools. I shall table amendments to establish procedures to ascertain pupils' views on matters affecting them and to establish an accessible complaints procedure.

Apart from that, the Education Bill encourages choice

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the time limit.

6.20 pm

Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North) : The Government obviously intend effectively to eliminate local government powers over school education. The White Paper puts it explicitly, describing the Secretary of State's hope

"that over time all schools will become grant-maintained". Responsibility for such services as educational psychology, welfare and home-to-school transport will remain with the LEAs "for the time being" and it is anticipated that the private sector will step in to provide museums, the library service, peripatetic music teaching and the like. However, that massive and deeply significant removal of local government powers is to be carried out with what I can only describe as the illusion of parental consent. The White Paper states :

"It is right that the route to GM status should remain the parental ballot."

In Wales, it is clear that if it were left to the volition of parents, the grant-maintained movement would never get off the ground. Unlike England, where about 300 schools have become, or are becoming, grant-maintained, in Wales there are only three. As has been established, two of those were set up as a result of the LEA's decision to close them in an attempt to deal with a

Government-defined problem of surplus places.

If the Welsh Office's approval of those schools' applications had any logical basis, it was that the competitive environment--market forces--free of any

Column 788

regulation was more likely to solve the problem of surplus places than strategic planning by a body charged with that responsibility. That would be perfectly consistent with the Government's ideology. Yesterday an hon. Member citing the work of T. S. Eliot spoke of the beneficial effects of friction between schools. That was the authentic voice of Thatcherism--an ideology which still affects policy formation, after it has lost all intellectual conviction. It is clear that leaving education to market forces is inconsistent with the provision of a comprehensive and just public education system. It would not work. Strategic decisions concerning the provision of places have to be taken and someone has to take them--some body has to take them. The White Paper and the Bill show that the Government clearly recognise that. The only serious remaining questions are, what decisions need to be taken by a body other than the schools, and what sort of creature should that body be?

The Government's answer is that it should be an unelected quango--the Schools Funding Council for Wales--rather than local education authorities. According to the Bill, the funding council will be able to assume that role partly when sufficient schools have opted for grant-maintained status and completely when 75 per cent. of pupils are educated in such schools. The key question is, how do the Government propose to shift from A to B and at the same time maintain the illusion of parental consent? There are two answers. First, they will seek to create a climate in which schools and parents perceive an inevitable and increasing momentum towards the break-up of the existing system and thus wish to be considered pioneering and abreast of the times, rather than dilatory. Secondly, they will undermine the will of local government to continue as strategically significant bodies and providers of support services.

The Government intend to reorganise local government in Wales so that, in 1995, there will be about 23 unitary multi-purpose authorities. They will be small and inexperienced compared with the county councils. Many will be run by a new generation of councillors. How much stomach will they have to assert their position as strategic bodies, knowing that the thrust of Government policy is to remove that function?

As soon as 10 per cent. of pupils are in grant-maintained schools, the national funding council will share the responsibility for securing sufficient places, being able to propose enlargement and changes in character in grant-maintained schools and the establishment of new schools. What will be the state of affairs in that twilight zone between two regimes? The Association of County Councils describe it thus :

"The ACC believes that placing concurrent duties for providing sufficient school places on LEAs and the proposed FAS will be confusing and a recipe for costly duplication The ACC is also concerned at the fragmentation of responsibility which will led to a complex superstructure and the inevitable emergence of an extensive and costly regional bureaucracy over time."

At that stage, local councils will be free to divest themselves of their strategic role if they so desire, and they will no longer be statutorily obliged to establish an education committee.

In the confusion of joint responsibility, as services to schools are increasingly provided by the private sector, and knowing the Government's intentions, the pressure on councils to hand over responsibility to the funding council will be considerable. If they do so, and if they are no longer

Column 789

able to provide services to schools, what reason will any school have for not going for direct grant status? That is probably what the Government think will occur. I subscribe to the conspiracy theory, rather than the cock-up theory, although in the case of this Government there is no contradiction between the two.

One thing is sure, a central agency--even the agency in Wales--will not be able to deal properly with local issues and their infinite variety, so

"the funding agency will need to be able to gather local information to perform some of its functions will be able to set up regional offices as the number of grant-maintained schools grows." I do not know what size the region served by the offices will be, nor, perhaps, does anyone, but it is clear that at some level there will be a regional and/or a local bureaucracy. The key difference will be that the bureaucracy will not be democratically accountable. The present bureaucratic procedure will be duplicated without democratic accountability.

The schools funding council for Wales will be accountable only to the Secretary of State for Wales. If anyone tells me that he is subject to democratic accountability, I must tell them that if democracy had its way in Wales any proposals to reform school education would be radically different from those in the Bill. It is worth bearing it in mind that the Secretary of State will have the power to bypass his own quango. If the funding agency does not set about the task of closing schools with a will, he will be able to propose such closures.

The loss of democratic accountability at the local level--the only level at which we have democratic accountability in Wales--is a desperately serious matter. The Welsh joint education committee believes

"that the creation of more nominated, unelected bodies is a threat to the health of the democratic process in Wales."

It is as serious as that.

Let us consider the consequences. Democratic accountability breeds a tradition in public servants of responsiveness, sensitivity to public opinion, respect for the elected representatives of the people and courtesy towards people. For a time after its loss, the tradition, the attitude of mind, the habits, will survive, but with the loss of direct democratic control the erosion of that tradition will proceed apace. Among the results will be arrogance, insensitivity, corruption, inefficiency and an educational system that will serve best the needs of the influential and the powerful--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. Mrs. Lait. 6.30 pm

Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye) : It has been of great interest to me to learn so much about Welsh education today and yesterday. It is also of great interest to me that the degree of comment on the Bill from the Opposition benches has been at the lower percentage end and there is an overwhelming feeling of ritual. I do not think that much has changed after 13 years. Indeed, I am reminded slightly of the Bourbons : they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak because I am conscious, that I come from a constituency in East Sussex which, as was mentioned yesterday, has no grant-maintained schools. I can understand why some teachers find it very difficult to leave the safe and cosy world of

Column 790

education and try to take on a more competitive edge. After all, they have left school, gone to college and gone back to school. I pay a tribute to East Sussex education authority and I would like to associate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) with these comments. It is a good local education authority. It was at the forefront in delegating budgets. It has always given a lot of authority to its head teachers.

The councillors of East Sussex maintain that they take a neutral stance on these issues. That translates, I sometimes think, into the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), that they should be fair and impartial.

I want to comment briefly on a memo that was sent by the county education officer to the schools in East Sussex just after the publication of the White Paper. Making a completely fair and impartial point, he said :

"the White Paper is actually very encouraging to us in East Sussex We still have everything to play for".

When schools indicate any interest whatsoever in going grant-maintained they get another letter from the county education officer. This includes comments such as :

"the White Paper shows for example that East Sussex secondary schools would receive around £300 less per pupil if they were funded at the level of the government's standard spending assessment, as is proposed in the White Paper" ;

and

"Governors might also have concerns about how admission levels will improve if you have to rely only on first preferences."

The letter goes on :

"There has been no discussion with the authority as to our view of the advantages and disadvantages for"

your school, and also says :

"It seems to me odd, to put it no higher, that you consulted with a pressure group with no knowledge about your school and simply committed to opting out, but not with the authority which has been supporting you."

That is not a requirement at the stage that this school has reached.

It is therefore of great concern to Members in East Sussex that this impartial and fair education authority is perhaps not being as impartial and fair as it could. It stands behind the phrase "parental choice". I recently came across its definition of parental choice as it relates to enrolment. It includes pins and a rubber band on a map, and those of us who know anything about rubber bands know that they can extend, but not in East Sussex.

On the subject of special schools, we have one special school in Hastings which is in the maintained sector. It is responsible to Lambeth. Those of us who have any knowledge of the Lambeth education authority can only have sympathy for the school. Over the last few years the school's roll, which was full at 36 pupils, is now down to 19. Parents are not told that this school is available to them. With increasing evidence of further exclusions, plus, as so many hon. Members have said, statement procedures taking so long, it is clear that children who would benefit from attendance at residential special schools are falling through the net. This is particularly true of the school in Hastings and other residential special schools that Lambeth controls. Children are better reintegrated into the system having had the opportunity of education in these special schools.

I very much hope that, when the Bill is being considered, it will be made clear that parents will be fully informed of the options their children have of going to special schools, so that they can choose which way to go

Column 791

forward. It will also help the schools if they can go grant-maintained and sell their services. We welcome the independent tribunal, but we wish to see, either on the tribunal or able to give evidence to the tribunal, an expert who knows the child who is being considered personally.

There is also the issue of non-maintained special schools, of which there is one in Brighton for deaf children. There is a considerable worry that, yet again, parents are not given information about services available. Some local education authorities appear to think that these schools are infinitely more expensive than their own, which is palpably wrong. I should therefore be grateful if, in Committee, we can look at this situation to ensure that the high quality of education provided by these non-maintained special schools can be continued, and that parents clearly understand that they may use those schools if they think they are best for their children. I also want to mention the problems of rural schools in which problems are encountered because the catchment area is not as large as it might be and rolls are not complete. This makes it very difficult to provide the education that one would wish, particularly in secondary schools. I know that schools can now extend their catchment areas to include more children, but it is a real problem that they do not necessarily have access to the number of pupils they need to be able to run the school as effectively and efficiently as they wish.

This is a very good Bill, which deals with quality and excellence in education that we as a Government have been pursuing in the last 13 years. I very much hope that, in Committee, we shall be able to deal with the issues that I have raised.

6.40 pm

Mr. Colin Pickthall (Lancashire, West) : I preface my remarks by saying that it would perhaps have been a more healthy debate had the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), for whose views on education I have a great deal of respect, had been piloting this Bill through. We would then have had a much saner debate over the last two days.

Yesterday, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E.

Kellett-Bowman)--she is not present, so I am forced to be extremely polite about her--said that schools in Lancashire had had to opt out because they were starved of funds by Lancashire education authority, and added :

"Schools in Lancashire will benefit enormously from the fact that, from now on, the Lancashire education authority's funds, which have been massively misdirected, will now go into those schools."--[ Official Report, 9 November 1992 ; Vol. 213, c. 648.]

According to Hansard, six secondary schools out of 110 have opted out of the Lancashire education system. Of those six, four have opted out in an undisguised attempt to preserve their grammar school status and to enhance their selection procedures and their desire for total selection. The fifth of those schools was in the aided sector and could not afford its share of a necessary £200,000-plus rebuild. The Government promised it that, if they opted out, they would get that money, but, having done so, they have received only half of it. They would have got that amount in any case.

Column 792

Five other comprehensive secondary schools in the non-aided sector have held a ballot and decisively rejected the opt- out opportunity. Secondary schools in Lancashire receive per capita funding in line with the national average. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy statistics show that Lancashire spends well above average on sixth form provision. Therefore, the grammar schools which I have mentioned have significant income advantages over other schools in the county.

I cite all that information not simply to score some points against the hon. Member for Lancaster, which is an easy thing to do, but to demonstrate that the hon. Lady, in common with the Conservative Government, operates by promulgating myths. Often, what the Government say bears no resemblance to any truth, even as shown in their own statistics. However, simply by reasserting over and over again that certain authorities are such-and-such or that such-and-such an activity is taking place in schools, the Government hope that, eventually, those myths will stick in the public mind --and perhaps they do.

The hon. Member for Lancaster referred to underfunding, but, out of a total budget of £300 million, Lancashire schools hold £23 million in their balances. They have been encouraged to do so by the local authority, of which I was until recently a member, because that local authority is wise enough to know that, as a result of the new dispensation, schools need to hold reserves and to gather funds for building and refurbishment projects. Therefore, the charge of underfunding is not true, either.

Why does the hon. Member for Lancaster make such claims about Lancashire ? Simply because it has been led by Labour since 1981 and because a handful of Lancashire Tory Members--not all--have sought for years in this House to portray it as an extreme authority. They have attacked it with a million terminological inexactitudes and, over the past decade, have inflicted a great deal of damage on that county. However, their attacks have failed, because the people continue to return a Labour administration, largely on the basis of its education record.

Lancashire is typical of many local authorities of all colours and of none, because, over many years, it has developed a highly sensitive network, which depends largely on local knowledge and traditional relationships. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) made a superb speech, which said it all. She highlighted the quality of local authorities and demonstrated that they were subject to smear after smear from central Government. Those smears are not confined to Labour authorities. It is true that Labour local authorities and others have opposed the education legislation to which the Government have subjected them over the years, but the test is how those local authorities implement it in order to serve their people and to protect them from the absurdities in much of that legislation. It is okay for the Government to push through their 17 changes, but who has to implement them? Who has to institute the consultation, the phasing-in procedures, the guidance, the advice and support, particularly the support for the local management of schools? Who has to provide the governor support units, which, in my authority, have made many friends.

The vast burden of the many Tory changes to the education system has been shouldered by local authorities and schools, not by burgeoning ministerial bureaucracies in London, and certainly not by the Secretary of State and

Column 793

his hon. Friends. They will project this rag -bag of a Bill out into the world and leave it to fend for itself, and they will watch the system collapse into chaos.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the Bill was about choice, but I must tell him that, in Lancashire, 95 per cent. of secondary school children and 98 per cent. of primary school are given their first choice of school. That is happening in an authority which has central administration costs of 3.7 per cent., while the central administration costs of its potential schools budget stand at 1.63 per cent. In Kent, those costs stand at 3.78 per cent. I should like the Secretary of State to tell me whether there is anything in the Bill that suggests that that level of choice satisfaction will be maintained for parents in Lancashire, given the nonsensical creation of a two-tier system. I should also like him to tell me what private businesses or commercial enterprises, never mind opt-out schools, could operate on central administration costs of 3.7 per cent.

The drive towards grant-maintained status has been patently rejected by most schools, most boards of governors and most parents. It has nothing to do with education, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said, everything to do with a desire to emasculate local authorities and to centralise control. Imagine what would be said in the press and by Conservative Members if a Labour Government implemented such a centralising Bill. The bribes have not succeeded, and now procedural and organisational changes must be made to make the process more weighted and slanted. Pressure is put not only on Labour authorities, such as Lancashire, but Conservative ones. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) mentioned East Sussex, and I am sure she is aware of the comments of Mr. Frank Keen, the chair of education in West Sussex, which has no opted-out schools :

"I am a Conservative. We are a Conservative LEA and it gives me no joy to say that they"--

the Government--

"are using all sorts of immoral bribes to persuade schools to go with the dogma"

Exactly so. One does not have to think any further about the implications of the Bill.

All that pressure would be understandable if the case for GMS had been proved. Perhaps all those schools are good, but where are the statistics and inspection reports to demonstrate that they are better than they were before they opted for GMS? The only evidence quoted by the Minister who opened the debate was a Mr. Adonis who said that the school he had visited was "smashing". Apparently Mr. Adonis is a Liberal--with a name like that perhaps he should be the leader of the Liberal party.

The consultation between publication of the White Paper and the Bill has been selective. My local authority and the regional branches of the teachers' unions have complained that their comments have not been heard.

6.50 pm

Mr. David Faber (Westbury) : I am glad of this opportunity to take part in the debate and to welcome the Bill. I thank the Government for giving two days to the subject, thus enabling more hon. Members to take part.

We have come a long way down the road of better education since 1979, and throughout those years the Government's principal objectives have been to enshrine

Column 794

in the education system the essential qualities of choice, diversity, accountability, greater responsibility for schools and, above all, higher standards.

The Education Reform Act 1988 created grant-maintained status, since when the spread of GM schools has moved to the heart of our education system. My right hon. Friend said yesterday that 340 schools had either applied for or been granted grant-maintained status, and I understand that about another 150 are in the pipeline. When I made my maiden speech to the House in the summer, I referred to the outstanding success story of schools such as St. Augustine's in Trowbridge in my constituency. Grant-maintained status means more money, but that is not the whole story. Schools can at last have control over their total budgets, and freedom to spend and manage their affairs as they see fit. GM schools are popular with parents, as shown by the increased number of applications for places, and parental involvement is greater from the moment of the initial ballot. Above all, GM schools have freedom over and responsibility for their own destinies.

The Bill will streamline the process by which the next generation of GM schools will make that transition. The ballot procedure will be speeded up, and strict limits will be placed on the sums that can be spent by obstructive and destructive LEAs campaigning against schools balloting for GM status. Those measures should help to combat some of the scandalous extremes to which some local authorities will go in trying to block applications by spreading misinformation and, sadly, often by spreading threats.

I welcome the decision taken by my right hon. Friend last week to write to all LEAs reminding them of their responsibilities and legal rights. I hope that he will not hesitate to use the full force of his powers against any LEA which deliberately seeks to mislead or, worse still, to intimidate parents.

I urge the Minister to consider carefully an issue that I have raised with him--the ability of some local councils hostile to GM status to continue to influence adversely some schools, even after grant-maintained status has been granted. The most obvious area is that of planning.

Aloeric primary school in Melksham in my constituency received GM status last summer, but it was recently surprised when its annually renewed planning permission for mobile classrooms was refused for the first time in its 20-year history by the local Liberal

Democrat-controlled planning authority. I am happy to say that the decision was subsequently overturned on appeal, but it has left a nasty taste and, I fear, bodes ill for the future.

A crucial cornerstone of the Bill is the funding agency that is to be established as a statutory body to take over funding responsibilities from the Department of Education. The agency will rightly be responsible for decisions such as the payment of grant and financial monitoring, while at the same time having increasing responsibility for the provision of sufficient school places. A common concern expressed by LEAs and those opposed to the Bill--the matter was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton)--revolves around the transitional phase from overall LEA control to financial control by the funding agency. I believe that the Government have the transitional period about right. With 10 per cent. of pupils taught in grant-maintained

Column 795

schools, responsibility will be shared. Once 75 per cent. are taught, the LEA will lose the power to determine local places. LEAs will increasingly be encouraged to act as the provider of certain services. They will continue to control non-grant-maintained schools, school transport, educational welfare and, most important, special needs education.

Clause 244, by which LEAs will be allowed to continue selling services for two years after the funding agency takes over, is causing some controversy. The thinking behind the clause is sound. Total dependency on an LEA should be discouraged, as that is the whole point of opting out in the first place. A market should be encouraged and allowed to develop in the private sector to assume those responsibilities.

Given that the two-year period will not begin until the number of grant- maintained schools is so high that it puts control beyond the LEA, they should have time to develop to a degree where private companies can then draw on their expertise and even their personnel. However, I have some sympathy with LEAs which will be prevented from selling what may be, even after the two-year period is up, the best and most competitive services. That could be a disadvantage to some grant-maintained schools, and I am concerned lest some schools think twice about applying for grant-maintained status because of that barrier.

I do not claim the expertise of some hon. Members of special needs teaching, and I read with interest the Official Report the two excellent speeches made in the debate yesterday by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning). But I have long taken an interest in special needs education in my constituency and, like hon. Members in all parts of the House, I am proud to serve as President of my local Mencap branch.

I am also vice president of the mid-Wiltshire dyslexia group, and I am fortunate to have in my constituency an active branch of the excellent Portage project. Some hon. Members will be acquainted with that project, but I hope that many others will gradually become fully acquainted with it.

I particularly welcome the fact that, under the Bill, the assessment of children and their statementing will continue to be the responsibility of the LEAs. It is crucial that the obligation to identify and assess the need is strictly adhered to, so that all children have every opportunity.

I am concerned about the provision of special needs teaching. In Wiltshire, with Department of Education approval, the LEA has introduced a scheme for delegating money within the locally managed system formula to secondary schools for children with moderate learning difficulties. The Minister will know that that innovative scheme is much in line with the recommendations of the recent Audit Commission report, "Getting the Act Together".

But in spite of that scheme, the strains on Wiltshire's special needs budget remain severe. There are two central problems. I urge the Minister to consider the vague definition in the Education Act 1981 that a child has a learning difficulty if he

"has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of his age."

Next Section

Home Page