Home Page

Column 691

House of Commons

Friday 26 November 1993

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

PETITION

VAT (Public Transport)

9.34 am

Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield) : I wish to present a petition signed by about 6,000 people from the Wakefield area urging the Government not to introduce VAT on public transport. The petition draws attention to the public concern in my constituency and elsewhere over the impact of introducing VAT on public transport on poorer sections of the community, and especially the increase in car journeys that are likely to arise as a direct result.

I am happy to endorse the petition, which states :

Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take care to reject any moves to impose VAT on bus and coach fares and to ensure the maintenance of zero rating of public transport. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc. To lie upon the Table.

Column 692

Education and Training

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

[Relevant documents : European Community Documents Nos. 6764/91, relating to the vocational training of young people and their preparation for adult and working life, and 4070/93, relating to access to continuing vocational training.]

9.35 am

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten) : At the heart of the Government's policies for education and training is the need to secure increased levels of attainment and, where appropriate, participation. At each age and stage of education and training, our efforts are aimed at improving quality, and I hope that we can share that across the Floor of the House.

The national targets for education and training provide an important focus for the actions required of all those involved in education and training ; I am therefore delighted to have the opportunity to draw the targets to the attention of the House. The targets have the absolute commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment, and, of course, they have the absolute commitment of everyone who works in my Department, including the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).

It may seem unusual for a Secretary of State to be present on Friday morning. I recall from my early days in the House that the sight of a Secretary of State in the House on a Friday morning was a sign of bad news- -that he was about to offer his resignation--or a sign of something important. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Bath (Mr. Foster), but I am present this morning because the national targets are important, and I am strongly committed to securing their achievement.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who will be winding up the debate, will make it clear that reaching the goals set by the targets is essential if we are to succeed in the international marketplace. Our competitive position depends crucially on the skills of the work force and, at the same time, there are immense benefits for individuals in developing their ability to the full.

Perhaps we should first consider international comparisons. They are always dangerous indicators to use, and they can be used too easily, but on education and training targets, they show that we have no room for complacency, because our competitors have equally ambitious plans. In today's world, competition comes from all quarters. We are naturally most familiar with the position in Europe and in the United States. However, we need to look far wider--to the burgeoning economies of the Pacific rim, where our competitors not only have ambitious plans, but start from a higher base of current achievement.

In making international comparisons, we can also take credit for our current position. We have always catered well for our highest fliers, and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that overall participation in education and training at age 16 now stands at 93 per cent.--an all-time high. One unusual international comparison shows that we

Column 693

spend more on education than many countries. It is unusual because figures are rarely quoted in the House that show that we spend more in any area.

We spend more than many other countries on social security and on education. We have a higher investment in education, standing today at 4.6 per cent. of gross domestic product, than, for example, Japan or Germany. Those who enter the education and training debate should constantly remember that that is the case. However, against that background, overall performance has been disappointing.

Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth) : I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, who has given way so early in his speech. I am particularly interested in his point about spending in schools. It would be helpful if he could say a word about per capita spending and pupil-teacher ratios, and the reforms that the Government have introduced over a considerable period.

Mr. Patten : Pupil-teacher ratios have improved substantially since 1979, as has per capita expenditure. As my hon. Friend knows all too well, because he has often told the House so, what is important is not just the quantity of money spent, but the way in which the money is used. I am proud of the fact that we spend more of our GDP on education and training than do Japan and Germany. We have to make absolutely certain that we spend that money to the best effect.

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury) : Will the Secretary of State confirm that the staff-pupil ratio has got worse over the past couple of years, as the Audit Commission's report on local management of schools has made clear? While he is on that point, will he clarify the Government's position on class sizes? His junior Minister has said that class size does not matter. What does he think?

Mr. Patten : These days, the budgets for schools, which stand at an all-time high, are placed substantially in the hands of individual schools- -up to 90 per cent. under LMS--and, in the case of the more than 1,000 grant-maintained schools, the money is wholly in the hands of schools. That means that there is considerable opportunity for local decision-making on expenditure. It is rather like the argument over beds in the NHS : what is important is not how many beds there are, or how many teachers there are, but the use to which they are put.

Nevertheless, I am proud of the overall pupil-teacher ratio and of the fact that we spend a substantially greater proportion of our GDP on education and training than do Germany or Japan, but what is important is not the overall sum of money but the way that it is spent. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) to whom the hon. Member for Dewsbury was presumably referring, makes a notable contribution to our debates, as he does, with his ties, to our sartorial standards. He is right. I pick my words carefully. None of the research available to me in the Department shows that a particular class size makes a difference to the standard of education. We have some spectacularly good results from large classes, in both primary and secondary schools, and some spectacularly bad results from schools with small classes. We should be wary about drawing implications from raw statistics.

I hope that the targets will be a matter of cross-party agreement, because those involved with the targets, and the

Column 694

council that will be running them, represent all strands of British life, including distinguished trade unionists such as Bill Jordan. The TUC is as much a supporter of national targets as are the CBI and the Government. I welcome that, as I am sure will the House. The national targets provide a clear and valuable challenge to all users of education and training to get better results, with particular emphasis on the all-important middle range of ability, which is where we need to concentrate more.

Before going further, I shall comment on targets and achievements to date. The first four targets deal with the foundation learning of young people. Foundation target 1 is aimed at achieving substantially higher levels of basic attainment. By 1997, 80 per cent. of young people should have a national vocational qualification at level 2, a general national vocational qualification at intermediate level, or four or five higher grade passes at GCSE. The latest figures--I have only those for 1992, although I shall soon have those for 1993--show about 55 per cent. of young people at that level.

We are aiming at the ambitious target--ambitious targets are the best ones- -of an increase of 25 percentage points over the next five years in attainment by our young people, particularly those in the middle range of aptitude. That is important, and I am sure that we shall achieve it. Whenever the Government set targets, we tend not only to reach them early but to out-perform them. I shall show that later, when I make an announcement about participation rates in higher education.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : My right hon. Friend spoke of the need to raise the attainments of those in the middle ability levels. I am sure that he will agree that we need to look again at how we teach that range. Over my long experience, little change was made in the way in which children were taught, and if we are to get those children achieving better, we need to teach them differently. Is there any research on that?

Mr. Patten : Yes. Much independent research is being done, by universities, by the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, and by others, into different teaching methods. My hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience as a distinguished ex-deputy headmaster. We listen to his clear and authoritative voice on those matters with great interest. In the numerous school visits that I have made--my ministerial team has also made such visits--I have been impressed with the different styles of teaching being introduced. Without over stressing the point, I am aware that many are looking back to the fundamentals, the basics, in what is taught in the classroom. People of all political views-- it is not a party political matter

Mr. Pawsey : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten : Has my hon. Friend eaten three Weetabix for breakfast?

Mr. Pawsey : I do not normally eat Weetabix. Cornflakes are my preferred breakfast dish.

Could I persuade my right hon. Friend to say a brief word about performance tables? I ask him to do so because I believe that the tables put into the hands of parents a valuable tool that enables them to assess the quality of teaching and the standards in individual schools. It takes away some of the guesswork and the problems associated with school-gate gossip. I hope that, at some point in his

Column 695

speech, my right hon. Friend will be able to draw attention to the excellent tables being produced, and the additional information contained within them.

Mr. Patten : I am extremely grateful for that point. I have just said that we are aiming to reach advanced targets in the next five years, and they will be demanding and challenging targets. That means that our performance will be measured. Because the Government are responsible for almost everything except the weather, if we fail to meet those targets by 1997, I and my ministerial colleagues, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment--I had better bring him in to share the blame--will be rightly blamed for that failure. That means that we shall be exposing our performance. Equally, what we did with the performance tables of schools last year, and this year with the important additional performance tables for further education colleges is to expose--

Mr. Pawsey : Will my right hon. Friend give way again?

Mr. Patten : Let me just finish my point.

Taken together, the tables are of great significance. Last year, before I published them for the first time, I was subject to a lot of advice from many different people. I was told that it was a dangerous thing to do, and that the material should not be published. The argument was, "Not in front of the parents ; not in front of the pupils. Keep it all secret."

The publication last year was right, because it gave parents information which enabled them and their children to make informed choices. That is exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said. Further education college tables are important, because they are aimed at adults of all ages to give them the information on which they can make informed choices.

It was right to make the information available last year to give the consumer of education the opportunity to make well-informed choices. That is entirely consistent with the innovation of the citizens charter by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The charter sets public standards and states whether those standards have been reached.

Mrs. Ann Taylor rose

Mr. Patten : I have not quite finished my answer to my hon. Friend, but I shall give way to the hon. Lady as soon as I have finished. The Prime Minister was right in saying that we should have publicly set targets for publicly provided services, and that we should make that information publicly known. I think that the citizens charter is a great constitutional innovation, and by the end of the decade it will be widely recognised as such.

I did not spot last year--Honest John Patten reveals his shortcomings to the House, unusually--that the tables have been one of the most powerful post-war innovations in education. By their very nature, they lever up standards. There is evidence that a number of schools were so dissatisfied with their published performance, that they set up action teams of groups of teachers to move around and improve their performance. That was not in the interests of the school, but in the interests of the pupils.

Several hon. Members rose

Column 696

Mr. Patten : I will give way first to the hon. Lady, and later to my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).

Mrs. Ann Taylor : The Secretary of State said that the publication of further education tables would help adults make informed choices. Why, then, are the exam results that are published in those league tables only the results of those aged up to 19? They do not include the considerable achievements of adults, who happen to be the vast majority of the pupils in FE colleges.

The Secretary of State said a few moments ago that we have to be careful about using raw statistics when it comes to class sizes. Is not that the case when it comes to examination results?

Mr. Patten : I will deal with the hon. Lady's points in reverse order. It is too easy to point a finger and say glibly of examination statistics that they are raw results. If they are raw results, young people carry those results with pride in their pockets as their educational currency throughout their adult working lives. They are the things which employers wish to see.

I am prepared to consider seriously what the hon. Lady said about further education tables. We want to improve the tables year on year. We took the decision to publish further education tables in the form that we did, along with the results from sixth form colleges and from sixth forms, to ensure comparability for everyone within the age range of 16 to 19. These days, I think of people of those ages as adults.

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the marvellous achievements of so many people who go to FE colleges as adults. We will see in future whether there are ways of building on that information, and I shall be happy to think about the hon. Lady's suggestion.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have become obsessed with class sizes? Might we not draw lessons from Japan, where, I understand, it is quite normal for class sizes to go up to as many as 50 children, yet they perform extremely well? Does my right hon. Friend agree that management of a class is more important than its size?

My right hon. Friend touched briefly on the benefits of league tables and schools that have performed less well, and the efforts that are being made to help those schools. Will he spell out what his Department is doing to help those weak schools?

Mr. Patten : My hon. Friend is quite right on the first point. My hon. Friend the Minister for Further and Higher Education has reminded me that sometimes not 50 but as many as 55 children can be taught in Japanese secondary schools. Those schools have no computers of any kind. That is the Japanese way, and they get high results from it. I am proud that our class sizes are much smaller, and I am also proud that we have more computers and associated software in primary and secondary schools than any western European country, and certainly within the EC.

My hon. Friend raised the important issue of what we are doing about the poorest schools. It does not do any good at all to sweep under the carpet the fact that there are poorer schools. When the evidence is in front of us, we will be prepared to use the powers in the Education Act to take over the running of those poor schools. We will send an

Column 697

education association to take over the running of the individual school or the group of schools. That will be done in the interests of the pupils, to make sure that they get the education that they deserve. A child has only one chance in life, and will not get chances again and again.

I think that the number of such schools will be relatively small--a few hundred at most. They will be highlighted and picked out not by me as Secretary of State, but by the entirely independent chief inspector of schools. The Office for Standards in Education--Ofsted--is an independent department, which acts entirely independently of Ministers, and it will make judgments on whether to use education associations.

It is apposite that my hon. Friend picked up that point, because I can report to the House that we may have the first report from the inspectorate before Christmas. That report will pinpoint the first schools which the inspectorate thinks are failing. One may imagine the substantial effect that that will have locally, and I hope that it will be a beneficial effect.

The reports will begin to land on my desk from 1 January, when the powers become operative. It might be of interest to the House if I explain what will happen then. At that stage, the school will have 40 days within which to bring out an action plan to put right those things which the inspector has highlighted as an indicator that the school is failing--not just failing as an institution, but failing its pupils. The action plan will then be published and put in the hands of the local authority. The authority will have 10 days in which to respond to that action plan from the school.

At that stage, I will decide whether I accept the action report, which may say that a list of things must happen within six, nine or 12 months. The report will involve some tough decisions by local schools and by local education authorities. I pay tribute to LEAs of all political colours which, in recent months, have taken such tough decisions without the legislation.

The action plan may involve getting rid of the school governors, and will almost certainly involve getting rid of the head teacher, because a failing school is normally led by a failing head teacher. Some other members of staff at the school may also have to go. In the case of LEA schools, those actions should be taken by LEAs, as many have done--including a good number of Labour authorities. More power to them in the action that they have taken in the interests of children.

If I judge that the action plan is not adequate, and the LEA and the school are unable to take the necessary action in the interests of the children, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam that I will immediately institute an education association to take over the running of the school from the earliest possible date. I hope that that will happen rarely, but that it will get general support. Those young people are the sorts of people who will have to meet the targets to which I will now return.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath) rose--

Mr. Patten : Before I return to the targets, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. Hon. Members of that party do cry such a lot if one does not give way.

Column 698

Mr. Foster : I hope that my point will be in fact helpful. The Secretary of State has described what will happen when Ofsted reports on a school that is possibly failing.

What thought has the right hon. Gentleman given to what will happen to other Ofsted reports on schools which are not so categorised? Has the Secretary of State given any thought to suggestions which have been made that, between the four-yearly inspections, there should be some annual reflection on the report that is given and the action plan which has been developed?

Mr. Patten : The hon. Member makes a positive point. Most schools in Britain are good and I pay tribute to them, but a small number are failing. A larger number are in a middle tier. They are not recognised as failing ; they are open to doubt. That is perhaps the category to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I shall draw his positive suggestion to the attention of Professor Stewart Sutherland, the chief inspector of schools. If any risk is picked up in the four-year cycle of inspections, something should be done to make sure that the school does not drift down to the failing level in those four years.

Mr. Pawsey : The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred to colleges of further education. I invite my right hon. Friend to cast his mind a little further. Does he agree that one of the best performance indicators is the number of young people who enter advanced education? I hope that my right hon. Friend will develop that theme as his speech progresses.

My right hon. Friend referred to the period of 40 days which will provide an appropriate interval for consideration to take place. The period of 40 days struck me, as it did my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). We wondered whether there was any biblical significance in 40 days and whether that was the reason why it sprang so readily to my right hon. Friend's mind.

Mr. Patten : I shall report later in my speech some important information about the increased levels of participation in higher education, exactly as my hon. Friend wishes. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not answer his first point immediately. As for my hon. Friend's second point, I had never thought of it. It is a jolly interesting justification.

I said that foundation target 1 sought substantially higher levels of basic attainment. By 1997, 80 per cent. of young people should have either a national vocational qualification at level 2, a general national vocational qualification at intermediate level, or four or five higher grade passes in GCSEs.

Before we had an important discussion about failing schools, following interventions from my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I was saying that the latest figures showed that about 55 per cent. of young people were at the foundation target 1 level. An increase of 25 percentage points is needed in the next five years. Those are the targets which I lay before the House now. If we fail in those targets, it will be our responsibility in Government. The next two targets deal with higher level skills. Foundation target 2 is for training and education to the level of NVQ level 3, or advanced level in either GNVQ or GCE, to be available to all young people who can benefit from it. Entitlement to post- compulsory education is

Column 699

already available to those who stay in education. The youth training arrangements guarantee training to at least NVQ level 2. Foundation target 3 provides that, by the year 2000, 50 per cent. of young people should reach NVQ3 or advanced level in GCE or GNVQ. A third of young people did so in 1992. An improvement of some 17 percentage points is needed in the next eight years. So we shall have to work hard to meet that target, too.

Both the basic and higher skills need to have appropriate breadth. Accordingly, foundation target 4 is that education and training provision should develop breadth, self-reliance and

flexibility--important skills in the modern work force for women and men. The thrust of developments in both curriculum and qualification frameworks is all in that direction.

One thing of which we can be certain is that the pace of technological and other change will not slacken, either within our country or in our competitor countries. Better attainment by young people needs to be accompanied by better agreements for keeping the skills of the work force up to date. Therefore, the second four national targets deal with lifetime learning--something in which I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) is extremely interested. That interest has brought him here this morning. I am sure that we can look forward to a speech which, because of his knowledge of lifetime learning targets, will be longer than his usual brief interventions.

Lifetime target 1 sets the general scene in providing that, by 1996, all employees should take part in training or development activities as the norm. The last full survey, as long ago as 1986-87, showed that about 48 per cent. received some training.

Lifetime target 2 turns a particular focus on the key national vocational qualifications. By 1996, 50 per cent. of the employed work force should aim for NVQs or units towards them. NVQs are only now becoming widely available. That is reflected in the available figures. However, we shall see an explosion in the use of NVQs in the next two or three years.

The work force in general needs to be better qualified. Accordingly, lifetime target 3 provides that, by the year 2000, 50 per cent. of the work force should be qualified to at least NVQ level 3 or advanced level in either GCEs or GNVQ. The 1992 figure was about a third. So hitting that target will require an increase of 17 percentage points in the next eight years. So, again, we are setting ourselves tough targets. If we do not set ourselves tough targets, we shall not successfully drive towards meeting them.

The last target deals with the key role of employers in the education and training process. Lifetime target 4 is that, by 1996, 50 per cent. of medium and larger organisations--defined as those with more than 200 employees--should be accredited as "investors in people". More than 400 recognitions have been made so far. More than 4,000 organisations are working to achieve "investors in people" status. They include my Department. We are working hard at it. I expect us to be successful. There will be trouble in my Department if we are not shortly successful. Many schools and colleges are also working towards meeting the high standards of "investors in people", of which I am a strong admirer.

How do all those targets come to be? I have given a brief description of the targets. The national targets were developed under the leadership of the Confederation of

Column 700

British Industry. I congratulate it on its initiative. I also welcome the care that it took to involve other influential bodies, other representatives of employers, representatives of staff, the Trades Union Congress and a wide variety of education and training interests.

The targets are entirely consistent with the thrust of Government policy. The Government were glad to lend their support. I made that clear when I spoke recently to the council of the CBI. I spoke mid-morning and I had the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) as a warm-up act. He gave not a bad performance. We all need warm-up men before we speak.

The overall aims of the targets should commend themselves to all interests, including all parties represented in the House. I note that the recent Hamlyn National Commission spoke non-controversially in favour of the targets. So there seems to be considerable consensus. Of course, there is room for debate about the best means of progress, but I hope that the targets are common ground. General agreement about the ends does not make their achievement easy. As I have said, there is much hard work to be done. That work is being spearheaded by the National Advisory Council for Education and Training Targets. It is an important body, chaired by Mr. Peter Davis, the co-chairman and chief executive of Reed Elsevier. A wide range of interests is represented on it.

I chaired the council's first formal meeting with Ministers last month. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of ries of State will be there on every possible occasion.

It is very important that we work collectively on this matter. My fellow Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who was present on that day, and I were greatly impressed by the way that the council was tackling its task. Progress towards the targets will be better co-ordinated and stimulated. The council also has in its sights the possibility of developing the targets over time so that their relevance and challenge is maintained.

How are we responding in the Department for Education? Delivering the targets must obviously be in the hands of the providers. However, my Department necessarily acts at arm's-length from day-to-day provision, so what is its role? To try to answer that question, I will quote from my Department's action plan in response to the targets. Just as potentially failing schools have to develop action plans to improve themselves, we in my Department had to develop an action plan ; otherwise, how on earth could we meet the targets when we signed up to them?

Any who doubt the close and effective working between the Departments should know that this was set alongside the Employment Department's complementary plan in an excellent single leaflet published in March. The document states :

"The Department for Education is committed to securing higher participation and attainment in education and training at all levels. It welcomes the National Targets for Education and Training as a means for increasing demand for, and achieving improved levels of attainment in, high quality education and training. Through its policies, the Department aims to give individual institutions maximum freedom to meet the needs of students, employees and employers in response to such demand."

That is a pretty good statement of how we are trying to set about these things.

Column 701

To give effect to that, we are pursuing a fourfold strategy : promotion, monitoring progress, reviewing policy and developing human resources. I shall comment briefly on each strategy in turn, beginning with promotion and publicity.

When we are trying to get something new going, publicity is obviously the first and most obvious lever. Among other things, fact packs and action packs have been sent to all further education colleges, and copies have been made available to schools. The new national council is also an important player. Its annual report on progress towards the targets will form an important peg for publicity, as will the accompanying major national conference. I understand that the first report back from conference is being planned for the spring of 1994. I was interested to see in mail sent to me in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, that the council has briefed all Members of the House of Commons in a useful document which sets out the background to the council's work.

It is vital that we monitor progress towards the targets. Together with the national council and others, we are developing the necessary data sources. The messages that those yield may not always be comfortable. However, as now established in my Department's major exercise in publishing comparative performance tables for schools and colleges--as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth pointed out--the point is not to comfort but to provoke debate and action as necessary to improve standards. That is why we are publishing.

There has been a particular difficulty over the measure of attainment for foundation target 1. The standard measure of education performance at age 16 is five or more higher grade GCSE passes. For the purposes of foundation target 1, however, the "academic" equivalent to NVQ 2 has been four GCSE passes. I am pleased that the national council has recently advised that things can be simplified by adopting a single bench mark of five higher grade GCSE passes. That serves to raise already ambitious objectives, and the Government are happy to accept the advice of the council.

On the monitoring front, it is useful that Ofsted and the Further Education Funding Council's inspectorate will consider progress towards the targets as one of the key inspection indicators in its visits to schools and colleges.

The Department's main role comes in the development of policies. In everything we do, we have the targets clearly in focus. Earlier this year, I issued an instruction to my Department that every policy proposal put to me should set out how the policy would, if implemented, contribute to the achievement of the targets. Every time that a policy paper comes to myself, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Higher and Further Education, my hon. Friends the schools Ministers and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Education in the other place, it has a paragraph to show how, if implemented, that policy would help us to meet the targets. In other words, it is going down into the warp and weft of the Department for Education and the way in which our excellent civil servants work within it.

Many existing policies already bear directly on the targets' achievements. In schools, where foundation target

Column 702

1 will be largely achieved, there is pre- eminently the national curriculum, together with the associated testing and the GCSE examinations.

Mr. Harry Greenway : This is a very important area. Will my right hon. Friend add to what he has said about publishing school examination results in league table form? I welcome that, but will he note and respond to the concerns of many schools that results should be published on a year basis--on the chronological age of the child, and not necessarily the school year in which the child finds himself? The present rifts between all independent schools, some maintained schools and the Department on this matter are serious, and by next year separate results will be published unless something is done, and that would be a pity.

Mr. Patten : That is an interesting and very important point. What we are trying to do with the performance tables--we do not put them in rank order as league tables ; they are simply alphabetical performance tables of schools--is to try to get the best possible approximation of the results.

It is important that we try to accommodate all interests, and that is why, before we published the performance tables for the first time, and again before we published them for the second time this year, we consulted very widely. Sometimes, Secretaries of State and Ministers are accused of not listening to consultation. We listened to consultation, and the overwhelming majority of those who responded were in favour of publication of results--GCSE results in particular--by age groups and not year groups.

There seems to be a particular problem affecting the independent schools. Independent schools educate about 7 per cent. of England's children, and do an invaluable job in representing the interests of those children and educating them. They often stand as beacons of excellence around the country, and I welcome that.

I attended a debate yesterday of the Girls School Association annual conference at Stratford-on-Avon on exactly this issue. There are a number of changes that we can introduce that might accommodate the independent schools' understandable points that have been raised in correspondence by a number of distinguished Members of the House--and not only by the Girls Schools Association but by the Headmasters Conference and others--for example, to make it quite clear that we take into account the performance of children who move from one school to another. Under the present system, they carry their results with them, rather than leaving them in the school from which they came.

There are a number of things that we could do that would have a substantial effect, but only at the margins. The core is that the independent schools, for reasons that I will not trouble the House with now, have slightly different needs in that respect from the great majority of maintained schools. The great majority of maintained schools, as the overwhelming responses to the consultation exercises of this year and last year show, are very happy, and are strong advocates of the present system.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have taken his advice on this and a number of other matters, and if he can suggest bright ideas as to how we can accommodate independent schools in the third round next year, I shall be happy to take any ideas from him--and from any other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Bath.

Next Section

  Home Page