Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gyles Brandreth (City of Chester): Not possible.
Mr. Marshall: I have come straight from the school. The answer is 75, of course--I am glad that we have an accountant as a Minister. The fact that 14-year-old children could be asked to multiply 25 by three tells a story about education in this country.
Mr. Christopher Woodhead is chief inspector of schools. If St. Christopher is the patron saint of travellers, Christopher Woodhead is the patron saint of all those who wish to be upwardly mobile in our society. He has shown that pupils achieve less than they should. Half of all primary schools and 40 per cent. of all secondary schools achieve less than they should. More than half of all 11-year-olds are below expected standards in maths and English. At 14, 45 per cent. of pupils fail to meet expected standards in English, maths and science.
On 4 January, Sir Geoffrey Holland, a former permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment, said that education in Britain was placed 35th in the world. The Times of that day said that the results in education were
The figure for 16-year-olds passing GCSE in maths, the national language and one science is 27 per cent. in the United Kingdom, 62 per cent. in Germany and 66 per cent. in France.
Given a simple addition and subtraction, 4 per cent. of the bottom 40 per cent. of 13 year-olds in Britain could answer correctly, but, with a far more complicated sum, 76 per cent. of German children of the same age could do so.
Sir Geoffrey Holland said that 13-year-olds in Britain are two years behind their continental counterparts. We need a change in emphasis on standards of spelling, punctuation and arithmetic. I object most strongly to those patronising people who say that those are middle-class values. A decent education is the birthright of every child. It is especially important for those who live in our inner cities, as education is the escalator of opportunity--it gives children the chance to escape from a life of mediocrity and under-achievement.
Why have we done so badly? It is not that we do not spend enough money. There has been a failure to recognise the wide variety of talent and ability. There are the very academic, the average and the non-academic, who will be blessed with other talents. For too long, we have ignored the very academic child. I remember interviewing some teachers and asking all of them, "How do you deal with the non-average child?" They all concentrated on the below-average child. God must have loved the average child, because he made so many of them. Nevertheless, other countries deal a better hand to all children.
When I visited Israel, I went first to a very academic school, rather like the traditional British grammar school, where the results were very good. I then went to the technical school at Ramat Gan, which taught children how to cut diamonds because that was the local industry. I then went to a school in Jerusalem that was training children to be motor mechanics and hairdressers. People said to us, "You may wonder why we are training children in these skills." They explained that it was so that all the children would have a job when they left school. Indeed, almost all the small garages in Jerusalem are owned by graduates of that school.
I have visited the curriculum centre in the London borough of Barnet, where people are trained to become bricklayers and motor mechanics. There is an enthusiasm among the teachers and the pupils that we do not always find in other schools. It is wrong to describe such training as education for failures; it is a recognition that it is an appropriate education for people with those particular skills. It is significant that, where people have been given such an education, truancy is low.
I asked the person in charge of the centre how many truants there were. He said that there was none because the pupils loved what the centre was teaching them and knew that they were being given a passport to a job when they left the school.
In our secondary schools, there should be greater selection, more training, more setting and more vocational training. However, the real problem can be found well before children go to secondary schools, because the primary schools have failed to recognise the need to push children as far as possible. I once asked the headmistress of a primary school whether she set homework. She said, "Homework--that is rather unfair to some children because they would not do it." Instead, she is unfair to all the children by giving them no homework. Their love of English was to be gained from "Neighbours" rather than reading a book. Their love of spelling was to come from the spellcheck of a computer. Their mental arithmetic was to come from pressing buttons on a calculator. That is not the way to educate children, but it is the path that we have gone down for too long.
I have just carried out a survey of schools in my constituency, when the question of homework was raised. Some of the schools were very good. For example, in the Menorah junior school, the children in the sixth form are set 50 minutes of homework a day. Another school said:
possibly, not probably--
How does the school react to that enthusiasm for homework? It does so with the words, "This is not possible."
Another school said that homework is set only at weekends, and when another school was asked about its policy, there was silence at the end of the telephone line. Then it commented:
Another school said to my assistant:
I would prefer to hear of pupils who were tired because they had done some homework, than of pupils who had not had the opportunity to do it at all.
We must not talk solely about academic standards. We should recognise that the children of today are entering a much more complex world than that of 20 or 30 years ago. The temptations of drugs, for example, are just as potent as the temptation of cigarettes was when some of us were slightly younger. The traditional standards by which most people once lived are under attack as never before. What does it profit a child if he obtains four A-levels and loses his soul to drugs? Education is more important than creating only academic standards. It is also important that the right ethos is inculcated in our children. Some of the denominational schools do a magnificent job, but the quality of religious education in some schools is rather pathetic.
I never thought that I would have to quote the editor of The Observer in support of a course of action, but I should like to refer to an article that he wrote on 2 March 1996, in which he said:
The Times said that the
thing that we need to do is secure
For far too long, progressive methods of education have failed. We want an end to calculators and "Neighbours", and an emphasis on spelling, mathematics and the beauty of the English language.
We also want an end to the philosophy that schools should be expected to underperform because of the social mix of their pupils. If Office for Standards in Education figures have shown one thing, it is that some schools in deprived areas can do very well and others half a mile down the road very badly. The schools doing very well are providing the sole opportunity for their pupils to leapfrog out of the vicious circle of deprivation and decline into which they were born, into a prosperous and successful career.
We also need to look at some of the examinations. I do not know whether the introduction of the GCSE has been an unmitigated success. When I was talking to a history teacher the other day, I was appalled to hear him say that pupils who had succeeded in their GCSE examinations did not know how to write an essay, and that they needed to spend the next two years learning how to do so before they could do their A-level examinations.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State never try to tinker with A-levels. They are the guaranteed gold standard of success. We do not want that gold standard to be debased by people saying, "Well, we shall make it easier for students to pass." An examination that is made easier for people to pass ceases to be an examination and ceases to set any standards.
Lord Melbourne is reputed to have said to Queen Victoria:
The reason why I have made a fuss about education this afternoon is that I believe passionately that there is a need for improvement in our education system and that that need is urgent. Otherwise, this country will go down relative to others.
Equally important, we shall condemn a whole generation, who will not be able to look forward to using their talents to the full. If we deny a generation of schoolchildren that right, we are denying it to them not just for the 11 years that they are in school, but for their many years of life after that.
H. G. Wells said:
"far lower than its funding deserves."
"The children will possibly"--
"get homework twice a week. Sometimes parents need to take holidays in school time and may ask for their children to be given homework for that period."
"We do homework as and when. We do not want to overload the children. They need some time off."
"Of course we have to remember with homework that the teachers have to correct it, and we have to take account of the fact that teachers might be tired."
26 Apr 1996 : Column 746
"The second fundamental fact of British education is its surrender to the dictates of social engineering rather than universal high standards".
"most important"
"a change of philosophy in schools".
"I don't know, Ma'am, why they make all this fuss about education; none of the Pagets can read or write, and they get on well enough."
26 Apr 1996 : Column 747
"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |