| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Private Schools (Inspections)
3. Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to review the inspection arrangements for private schools. [14678]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): The arrangements for the Office for Standards in Education's registration inspection of independent schools are working well, and we have no plans to change them.
Dr. Wright: Has the Minister had a chance to see the recent report showing the unsatisfactory nature of the inspection arrangements for private schools? Can it be right that there should be such a cosy complicity in the arrangements? Can it be right that a school which would be judged a failing school in the public sector will be given a clean bill of health in the private sector? Can it be right that the inspection reports in the private sector are not even published? Is it not time for the Government to ensure that good public sector practices are brought into the private sector to protect unsuspecting parents from being taken for a very expensive ride?
Mr. Squire: I hope that in referring to unsuspecting parents the hon. Gentleman was not referring to one of his hon. Friends. There is a small problem in the hon. Gentleman's question: he referred to the Douse report, which was not on Ofsted/Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools inspections, but on the inspections carried out and the arrangements made by the Independent Schools Joint Council. The Ofsted inspections, to which the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question referred, are just as rigorous for the private sector as for the state sector, and will continue to be so.
Primary School Standards
4. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she is taking to raise standards in primary schools. [14679]
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Government have introduced a coherent programme of reforms designed to raise standards in all our schools.
Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the leadership of the head teacher and the quality of classroom teaching are the keys to improvements in standards? Will she and her ministerial colleagues take the lead in seeking to improve those key determinants and encourage the teaching profession to reflect critically and responsibly on its contribution?
Mrs. Shephard: The chief inspector makes it very clear in his report that the leadership of the head teacher in raising standards of public achievement is the critical factor. For that reason, the Government are devoting a lot of resources to improving the performance of head teachers who are already in post and to the headlamp programme, and it is why we shall be piloting work on a new qualification for head teachers with effect from September.
Ms Estelle Morris: Is it not amazing that the crisis in primary education seems to be everyone's fault but the Minister's? Has it not entered her head that constant changes in the national curriculum and testing, larger class sizes, crumbling buildings, too few resources and low teacher morale might just have something to do with the fact that half our 11-year-olds are under-achieving? Would the Government not make a useful first step towards finding a solution if they accepted that most of their policies were part of the problem?
Mrs. Shephard: It would be a useful first step for the Opposition to have supported all the Government's measures that have been introduced to improve standards. The Opposition have consistently opposed testing and assessment, regular inspections, publication of examination results and the greater involvement of parents. Those are just some of the measures that the Government have introduced to improve standards in schools. It would sit better on Opposition Members if they had supported those measures before making comments such as those that the hon. Lady has just made.
Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the contribution of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) would have been better received in the House if the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats had not opposed testing when it was introduced by the Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members live in a time warp in which only permissive methods of education hold sway?
Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will make their own judgment about which particular time warp is inhabited by Opposition Members. There is no question but that the processes of inspection and testing contribute to the improvement in standards in schools, and we set great store by them.
Higher Education Tuition Fees
5. Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding top-up tuition fees for higher education in the 1997-98 academic year. [14680]
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): We have had representations from students, parents and others with a direct interest in higher education, expressing concern at the proposal of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to introduce top-up entrance fees. The Government share that concern and see no need for universities or colleges to impose such fees.
Ms Corston: Does the Minister accept that while a fundamental review of the funding of higher education is welcome and overdue, action must be taken now to deal with the funding crisis which has caused universities even to consider top-up tuition fees? Is he aware that the vice-chancellor of Bristol university has said that this year's 7 per cent. real terms cut, coming on top of cuts of 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. per year every year for the past 15 years, is doing irreversible damage and is irresponsible because the quality of education cannot be maintained?
Mr. Forth: Vice-chancellors are free to give their judgment at any given time, and I have heard similar quotations from other vice-chancellors from time to time. That has occurred against the background of our investing an enormous amount of money in higher education, which represents a large proportion of the total educational spend in this country.
I hope that no vice-chancellor is suggesting that the quality of education at his university is anything less than ideal or the maximum. If that were so, that vice-chancellor and his colleagues would have a lot of questions to answer when their position was set against the background of the amount of public money that they receive and the work that they do at their institutions. I therefore hope that we can put that matter to one side.
I pay tribute to Bristol university and other universities which have done excellent work to achieve productivity and efficiency gains over a period of years. We expect them to continue to do so.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
Does my hon. Friend accept that some universities run themselves much better than others, and that some pay their way while others just bleat and moan? I am happy to say that Lancaster university has always paid its way. Its standing is so high that it has raised no less than £10 million in a bond on the financial market, allowing it to build new buildings for undergraduates and graduates and to peg rents. Why cannot other universities follow that example?
Mr. Forth:
As always, my hon. Friend makes a pertinent and penetrating point. Among our higher education institutions are many which do excellent work, manage themselves efficiently and effectively and deliver the highest quality of education, while others may not carry out such excellent work. If institutions were to share information with one another and adopt best practice, many of them would achieve better results with the money that they already have.
Mr. Don Foster:
Further to the response that the Minister gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), will he answer her question? Can he confirm that the setting up of the Dearing inquiry in no way absolves him from taking action now to resolve some of the serious problems in higher education, not least in relation to capital funding? Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the private finance panel has said that the private finance initiative is ill suited to many non-commercial academic projects? As PFI will not be suitable to solve those problems, what action will the Minister take now--or will he use the Dearing inquiry as an excuse for a complete cop-out?
Mr. Forth:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in close touch with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom and with those responsible for making progress with the private finance initiative to discover exactly how it can meet the needs of higher education, where there may be difficulties and how those difficulties may be resolved. There is no sense in which the Secretary of State and I are not listening to what the CVCP has to say; we are doing so and we shall continue to do so. We are working hard to ensure that the private finance initiative can work as effectively as possible in higher and further education, as it has done in the past, and we expect it to work more effectively in future.
Mr. Bill Walker:
In considering education, fees and expenditure, will my hon. Friend condemn the action of the students of Stirling university, who have invited Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein to Stirling? Following the bombings in London, is that not at best insensitive and at worst stupid?
Mr. Forth:
My hon. Friend raises a difficult issue. The tradition of free speech on our campuses probably overrides any other concern, and I have always said that all students should be able and free to listen to all points of view that are offered to them, no matter how unpopular or unpalatable, and make up their own minds. Although I well understand my hon. Friend's concern, on balance I would stand firmly on the principle of freedom of speech and the ability of students to make up their own minds about what they hear rather than any suggestion of discouraging or, even worse, banning any individual point of view.
Mr. Steinberg:
Does the Minister agree that if the universities introduced a top-up charge, it would be the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of student debt? Does he also agree that students find it extremely difficult to manage at university, that many are suffering tremendous financial hardship, and that such a charge would be a further burden on them? Does the Minister further agree that we are reaching a stage when only well-off families are able to send their children to university?
Mr. Forth:
I do not agree with the premise of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do agree with him that the registration fee proposal recently floated by the CVCP would, if implemented in what I understand to be the suggested form, bear most heavily on middle and lower middle-income families, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. That is one of the many reasons why the Government completely oppose the suggestion and hope that it will not be implemented by the CVCP.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |