| Previous Section | Home Page |
Clause 202
Supervision of education associations by the Secretary of State
Amendment made : No. 199, in page 121, line 16, at end insert-- ( ) Before giving a direction under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the education association or (as the case may be) each education association to which the direction applies unless, for reasons of urgency, it is not in his opinion reasonably practicable for him to do so.'-- [Mr. Boswell.]
Clause 212
Proposals for establishment, etc. of schools by local education authority
Amendments made : No. 161, in page 126, line 2, leave out (1)' and insert (1A)'.
Column 326
No. 162, in page 126, line 11, leave out in' and insert to'.-- [Mr. Boswell.]Clause 213
Proposals for establishment, etc. of voluntary schools by promoters, etc.
Amendment made : No. 163, in page 126, line 39, leave out in' and insert to'.-- [Mr. Boswell.]
Clause 214
Directions to bring forward proposals
Ordered,
That Clause No. 214 be divided into three Clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (4), the second of subsections (5) to (8) and (11) -- [Directions to bring forward proposals for additional provision in Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision, -- in maintained schools ] and the third of the remaining subsections [supplementary provisions] and the third Clause be transferred to the end of line 38 on page 131. Amendments made : No. 164, in page 127, line 16, leave out in' and insert to'.
No. 165, in page 128, line 9, leave out this section' and insert section No. or No. of this Act'.
No. 166, in page 128, line 12, leave out this section' and insert
section --[in Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision ] -- or --[Directions to bring forward proposals for additional provision in maintained schools ] -- of this Act'. No. 167, in page 128, line 20, at end insert--
( ) Proposals made in pursuance of an order under section --[Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision ] -- of this Act may not be withdrawn without the consent of the Secretary of State and such consent may be given on such conditions (if any) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. ( ) Notwithstanding anything in section 17 of this Act, a county or voluntary school is not eligible for grant-maintained status-- (a) if the local education authority have made any proposals in pursuance of an order under section --[Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision ] -- of this Act to cease to maintain the school which have not been withdrawn and no determination whether or not to approve or implement the proposals has been made under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 or section 217 of this Act, or
(b) if the Secretary of State has made any proposals under section 215 of this Act for the local education authority to cease to maintain the school which have not been withdrawn and no determination whether or not to adopt the proposals has been made under section 217 of this Act.
( ) Section 242(4) and (5) of this Act does not apply in relation to any proposals under section 12(1)(d) or 13(1)(b) of the Education Act 1980 made in pursuance of an order under section --[Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision ] -- of this Act'.
No. 168, in page 128, line 23, leave out
or section 169 of this Act'.
No. 169, in page 128, line 25 leave out
this section and sections 215'
and insert
sections [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision ] '.
No. 170, in page 128, line 29 leave out this section and sections 215'
and insert
Column 327
sections [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision ] '.-- [Mr. Boswell.]Clause 215
Publication of proposals by the Secretary of State
Amendment made : No. 171, in page 129, line 45 leave out in' and insert to'.-- [Mr. Boswell.]
Clause 216
Public inquiry into proposals
Amendments made : No. 172, in page 130, line 11 at end insert
which he has not withdrawn'.
No. 173, in page 130, line 12 leave out
subsection (5) of that section'
and insert
section 215(5) of this Act'.
No. 174, in page 130, line 23 after authority', insert (and not withdrawn)'.
No. 175, in page 130, line 28 after school', insert (and not withdrawn)'.
No. 176, in page 130, line 29 after area', insert (and not withdrawn)'.-- [Mr. Boswell.]
Clause 217
Adoption of proposals and approval of related proposals
Amendments made : No. 177, in page 131, line 19 after adopt', insert
with or without modifications, or determine not to adopt'. No. 178, in page 131, line 23 leave out second the' and insert their'.-- [Mr. Boswell.]
Clause 220
National Curriculum
Mr. Don Foster : I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 133, line 2, after Curriculum)', insert--
(a) in subsection (1)(b) (basic curriculum), after "which" there is added--
"--(i)",
(b) at the end of that subsection there is inserted--
"and
(ii) where the school provides secondary education, includes such arrangements for vocational education or training as may be prescribed for registered pupils of prescribed ages.",
(c) in subsection (2) for "subsection (1)(b)" there is substituted "subsection (1)(b)(i)", and
(d)'.
The amendment looks complicated on paper, but it is simple in practice. It seeks to insert vocational education or training into the basic curriculum for secondary schools. It aims to reform the national curriculum so that it comes closer to fulfilling the description of a national curriculum that is balanced and broadly based.
During the debate in Standing Committee, hon. Members agreed with the need to give equality of esteem and parity to both academic and vocational provision, which the amendment would allow. In skeleton form, it says :
"such arrangements as may be prescribed for registered pupils of prescribed ages."
Column 328
In the form presented, it would give the Secretary of State the power to prescribe the arrangements. In a fully developed form, I hope that it would seek to extend the role of the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority to advise on such arrangements for vocational educational and qualifications. Our debate in Committee covered some aspects of how the role of the SCAA could be extended to do that. The amendment is intended to address the principle of a balanced curriculum for secondary schools.5.15 pm
In Committee, the Minister said :
"We want it"--
the national curriculum--
"in place to ensure that pupils no longer lose out on the fundamental skills, knowledge and understanding needed for all aspects of their adult life. It looks forward to what they will be doing in a few years' time and provides them with the necessary equipment for that task."
I am sure that the Minister had in mind not only academic work, but the world of work for pupils in secondary schools.
The Minister was particularly encouraging when he continued : "We do not have closed minds and are prepared to keep the national curriculum under review."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee E, 2 February 1993 ; c. 1314.]
The amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to demonstrate that he does not have a closed mind and is willing to continue the review of the national curriculum. I hope that in doing so he will give thought to the way in which he and his Conservative colleagues have sometimes talked about the importance of vocational education, but have rarely provided an opportunity for it fully to flower in our schools, not least because of their continued insistence on what they tend to call the gold standard of A -levels in our sixth forms. Only by breaking down the belief in the gold standard of A-levels will we be likely to move towards the parity of esteem that is frequently proposed and espoused by Conservative Members.
Amendment No. 104 will change parts of clause 2 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It will establish the context in which we should remember that clause 1 of that Act requires there to be a
"balanced and broadly based curriculum which--
(a) promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society ; and"-- significantly--
"prepares such pupils for the opportunities, reponsibilities and experiences of adult life."
Clause 2 of the 1988 Act describes the national curriculum, but it is an incomplete description as it fails to take account of the parts in clause 1 referring to the preparation of pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. I accept that amendment No. 104 would radically change the nature of the national curriculum for secondary schools. It would comprise two parts : the existing structure of subjects covered by statutory requirements relating to programmes of study, attainment targets and assessment arrangements ; and, separately, vocational education or training. Although the amendment is silent on the point, both parts of the restructured national curriculum should be governed by advice from one organisation--the new SCAA.
I think that the desirability of vocational education is accepted by all hon. Members. We must acknowledge that the vast majority of our secondary schools--90 per cent.
Column 329
--and more than half our primary schools have some sort of link with local industry. That has been partly promoted by actions taken by the present Government, through the introduction of the technical and vocational education initiative, and their support for compacts. We must accept that in 1983 the Government set up the Business and Technician Education Council to promote vocational education and, more recently, with cross-support from all parties, they set up the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.Such support from the Government and other parties has led to a major development of vocational education in many schools. That has also been supported by bodies outside the House. In 1989 the CBI report "Towards a Skills Revolution" recommended that national targets should be set for the overall achievement of qualifications in vocational education and training. The Government's White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st century" warmly welcomed that CBI initiative. Even the headmasters' conference got in on the act, saying that it would welcome opportunities to be involved in the planning of vocational courses which could be appropriately taught in our schools.
In the most recent general election, the Conservative party manifesto said :
"We will also continue to develop new high-quality national vocational qualifications, and introduce a new post-16 diploma which recognises achievements in both vocational and academic courses." Therefore, it is beyond doubt that there is support on both sides of the House and outside the House for vocational education to become an important element in what goes on in our secondary schools. As I have already suggested, there is growing evidence that vocational education is taking place within our secondary schools.
The question, therefore, is : why am I so anxious to ensure that we have a major change in the national curriculum? It is simply that, without ensuring that vocational education is contained within the statutory framework of the national curriculum, there is no guarantee that the work will continue or develop and there is certainly no guarantee that it will have the parity of esteem that all of us have so often said that we seek.
In introducing such a requirement, I am aware that it will mean a major cut in what is contained within the national curriculum. Many hon. Members in previous debates have talked about the overloaded national curriculum and many others, teachers, parents and governors, have echoed that concern. I for one and my party are keen to see a major slimming down of the national curriculum so that we have a minimum curriculum entitlement and much greater opportunity for individuals to develop areas of expertise that are appropriate for the children in their schools.
A major revision of the national curriculum is necessary and I hope that it will take place with detailed consultation with all involved in the partnership that makes up our education service so that in due course we shall see a revised, slimmer national curriculum which includes within the statutory structure reference to vocational education.
The issue is one of principle about parity between academic and vocational qualifications. The thrust of the amendment is that all schools should fulfil the aims set out in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988. The amendment introduces an entitlement to vocational
Column 330
education and training for pupils in secondary education as an element of a balanced curriculum aimed at preparing such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Therefore, I hope that it will gain the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.Mr. Pawsey : I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). He advanced a powerful case for vocational education. But the problem is that the national curriculum has proved so successful that everyone now seems to want to get in on the act. The idea being advanced by the hon. Gentleman clearly has some virtues and sounds good, but I suspect that every hon. Member has his own idea of what subjects should be in the national curriculum and how much time should be allocated to them. I noted with interest what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for schools to liaise with local industry. He was right to draw attention to the importance of the links that exist with local industry. I am well aware that secondary schools in my constituency are in close touch with local industries, to the benefit of school and industry alike.
There might, however, be a case for fewer subjects within the national curriculum. I see that I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), whose knowledge in this area is considerable. There is an argument that we should concentrate on a core curriculum of, say, English, maths, the sciences, history and geography, with those subjects taking up about 60 per cent. of the school timetable and with schools then deciding what time should be allocated to other subjects.
I appreciate that the principal reason given for the national curriculum during the passage of the 1988 Act was that some schools did not concentrate on the essential subjects and that much school time was being wasted on subjects which could only be described as peripheral. I am happy to say that that point had support from both sides of the House.
In the current educational climate, there does not seem to be an overwhelming requirement for such a prescriptive national curriculum as currently exists or as the hon. Gentleman would have. For example, much more information about schools and what is taking place within them is available today compared with 1987-88. For example, schools now issue reports and prospectuses. We read examination results and truancy tables. Inspections now take place every four years and we have more parent governors. There are even annual general meetings. I am therefore beginning to wonder whether the national curriculum is as necessary as it once was.
I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said, although I do not go along with his comments about A-levels and the gold standard. I believe passionately that A-level is the gold standard. The three-year British degree hinges on the quality of A-levels. If that is diminished, I am apprehensive about what will take place in our universities. The British degree remains the envy of the world and I do not wish to see it diminished or diluted in any way. Therefore, I hold firmly to the view that the A-level is the gold standard.
Mr. Enright : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some form of baccalaureate, which some British children already take, is far preferable to the narrow rigidities of the A-level?
Column 331
Mr. Pawsey : I have heard that argument advanced before, but I am not fully persuaded. Above all, I am concerned about tinkering with our examination structure ; not all the new examinations which have been introduced have proved as successful as their authors would have wished. The A-level remains the touchstone of quality and I do not wish to see it diminished in any way.
5.30 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd : I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on his amendment. Nothing better exemplifies the two-tier nature of our education system than the gap between vocational and so-called academic education. The remarks of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) reveal the gulf between those who pride themselves on their traditional view and those who consider that view to be increasingly outmoded and unhelpful to almost all, if not all, young people.
It is nonsense to suggest that there should be a split between vocational and traditional academic education in a modern society. It should not be necessary--this is not meant as a criticism--for such an amendment to have any relevance in our education system or to have to mention the need to increase and to enhance the role of vocational training.
Mr. Pawsey : The hon. Gentleman's speech reminds me of a point that I meant to make, and I will do so in this brief intervention. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that city technology colleges represent a way forward and provide an opportunity to bring vocational education on the scene. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that grant-maintained schools can specialise, to use the S-word? If they choose to specialise in technology, does that not represent a major step down the route that the hon. Gentleman favours?
Mr. Lloyd : I am afraid not. Schools are ghettoised, and then the claim is made that CTCs provide a different, better type of education. Certainly it is more expensive, but CTCs have not worked out too well. Their results show that they are not able consistently to claim that they are a means of enhancing technological education. It is ridiculous to suggest also that many young people should be denied access to a vocational or technological strand in their education. Some years ago, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) taught at Manchester grammar school, where it was the practice to subdivide boys at an early age into potential classicists, scientists and linguists. It is absurd to believe that young people can be segmented in that way, and destructive of their educational potential.
Mr. Pawsey : I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party did much to deny opportunities to our nation's children. As he knows, there used to be a tripartite system, comprising technical, grammar and secondary modern schools.
Mr. Jamieson : That was under Shirley Williams.
Mr. Pawsey : Yes, Shirley Williams--and the hon. Lady whose constituency I temporarily forget.
Mr. Pawsey : No, not Finchley. The hon. Gentleman thinks quickly, but not quickly enough.
Column 332
Shirley Williams and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) were the twin architects of the present comprehensive system. I do not believe that it has assisted education in the long term. The old tripartite system, which we successfully exported to Germany and which worked so well there, was the best in the United Kingdom.Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That was a very long short intervention.
Mr. Lloyd : I can only agree, Mr. Morris. It is fair to place on record the fact that Lady Thatcher closed more grammar schools than anyone else. Legislation is on the statute book to be used not so much as a mandate as at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It was Lady Thatcher who destroyed the system that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth holds dear.
Mr. Patrick Thompson : The hon. Gentleman referred to the tremendously good school at which I had the privilege to teach between 1960 and 1965. He was critical of Manchester grammar school because at that time it operated rigorous entry selection and streaming procedures, and a division was made between those who were to specialise in the classics, mathematics, or languages. The hon. Gentleman rather overstated the downside. The school is now independent because the Opposition, when in government, destroyed the old grant system--more's the pity. However, in those past days the school produced some superbly and broadly educated people--some of whom, I believe, entered the ranks of the civil service : for all I know, they may be sitting nearby and listening to this debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that his criticism was a little ill judged and that Manchester grammar school produced well educated and rounded people. Nevertheless, I understand his basic point.
Mr. Lloyd : There may not be such a huge difference between the hon. Member and myself. I was making the point that it would be unacceptable at Manchester grammar school and most private schools to go down the road that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth favours, and adopt the tripartite system--under which those whom the hon. Gentleman thinks are worthy would receive a grammar school education, those who are considered less worthy would recieve a technical education and those dismissed as educationally irrelevant would be given a secondary modern education.
Representing as I do a constituency that will operate the selective system, and remembering as I do the old tripartite system and all the problems of ghettoisation under it, I know that there can be no returning. We must find means of producing the rounded education for all young people that the hon. Member for Norwich, North urges upon me. I hope that he will urge it upon the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, who is chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench education committee.
Mr. Pawsey : I am a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's views of the extraordinary word "ghettoisation". I do not know whether he takes credit for it or whether it is imported from the United States--in either case, I do not like it, and it is inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to three strands, but each strand provided the right type of education for the particular child entering it. As the hon. Gentleman knows,
Column 333
I am the product of an elementary school and a technical school. I may not have enjoyed the privileged education experienced by the hon. Gentleman, but the tripartite system worked. I regret that it does not still operate in the United Kingdom. It was abolished and sacrificed on the altar of comprehensive education.Mr. Lloyd : That is where the hon. Gentleman and I disagree, and he disagrees with a number of his colleagues. The tripartite system did not work. It failed far too many of our young people, and continues to do so in some parts of the country. In the spirit of the amendment, we are seeking to abolish the silly and arbitrary divisions that were built over the years between academic education and so-called non-academic education in vital areas of vocational education. Mr. Pawsey rose --
Mr. Lloyd : If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have hardly progressed further than my opening remarks because of interventions. Vocational education is important not only to individual learning but to the nation's future. If we fail our young people by neglecting to provide them with an adequate vocational education, we shall have begun to fail the nation.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the concept of the A-level as the "gold standard" of our system. Like other gold standards, it has become devalued in itself, and in itself it devalues other qualifications. As long as we have a Secretary of State who is committed to that gold standard, while paying lip service to the idea of equivalence between A-levels and other qualifications--national vocational qualifications in particular--and as long as the A-level examination continues to be paraded as the primary aim of our academic system, NVQs will be devalued. That is not acceptable in a modern society which is trying to promote the values of vocational education.
The NVQ system is important. It is no longer merely an experiment ; it should be applauded in its own right, as a valuable stepping stone. Of course, if we are to transcend both the present NVQ system and the present A-level system, we must provide a qualifications base that is excellent in itself, allowing young people to aspire to the highest standards. We must maintain what Conservative Members believe exists in the A-level system-- although I doubt that it does. We must also ensure that all young people can aspire to the same high level of attainment. If we do not do that, we shall fail the majority through our pursuit of the vacuous view that the minority--the academic elite--are more important than all the rest.
Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : Surely A-levels and NVQs are not incompatible. We have encouraged students to take a couple of A-levels and some AS-levels to broaden the base of their education. There is no reason why the same should not apply to NVQs. Heads and class teachers in a number of schools are now encouraging pupils not to go for the traditional three A -levels--or even for four or five, in the case of high fliers--but to spread their education in a way that I think we would all favour. We need first to give such an educational spread the blessing
Column 334
and imprimatur of Government and Parliament, and then to educate employers and higher education establishments so that they accept such qualifications.Mr. Lloyd : I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's objectives, but I am not sure that such methods would achieve the result that he wants. The AS-level system has not been a tremendous success ; it has not been adopted in many areas, and is still viewed with suspicion--or, at any rate, is seen as less than relevant.
I doubt whether it is feasible to combine the A-level system--which is a specialising and, in my opinion, very narrowing system--with the NVQ system, which is supposedly intended to create a broad educational plateau. Such a combination would be fraught with difficulties. I am not at all happy about the aim of the A-level system.
One of my children is now faced with a choice of the subjects that she will study next year if she is able to continue in education after GCSEs. She is being forced fairly young to reject a good many options. What matters is not which subjects she chooses to take, but the subjects that she must drop. The A-level syllabus is forcing her to narrow her educational opportunities while still relatively young : in that regard, the system is fundamentally flawed.
It is ridiculous to claim that we are trying to produce 18-year-old specialists. For instance, three language A-levels do not constitute a sufficient qualification to allow a young person to work as a linguist, although they may be an acceptable qualification for those wishing to read for a language degree. There is almost no merit in the idea of trying to achieve such a degree of specialisation at that age : indeed, it has been rejected by a good many countries, in which it is regarded as a very silly way of trying to educate young people. At present, the necessary educational breadth does not exist. 5.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) suggested the introduction of an international baccalaureate--a broadly based and challenging qualification that could raise all young people's aspirations. I think that that suggestion is along the right lines : it would allow the blending of courses and interests recommended by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). If that is indeed the hon. Gentleman's intention, we are on common ground ; but the present arrangement, in which an elitist academic A-level system exists alongside a non-elitist, devalued system for those who pursue a vocational line, is far from helpful.
The Secretary of State introduced some semantic confusion by describing the key stage 3 English testing as a means of resolving the problems of illiteracy. Yesterday, at Question Time, he mentioned a report according to which up to a third of young people leaving school at 16 and going on to further education colleages need remedial help in understanding English-- after 14 years of Conservative government. The very fact that the Secretary of State chose to highlight that finding is an indictment of both the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors ; but he went on to say that the testing involved in key stage 3 would resolve the problems, which is a sign of the educational illiteracy of Ministers who are charged with looking after young people's education.
It is clear that the whole key stage 3 debacle has been driven by an ideological approach to education. The
| Next Section
| Home Page |