| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 18, line 20, after 'assessment', insert
', at the request in writing of their parents or guardians,'.
No. 9, in page 18, line 22, at end insert
Mrs. Liddell:
The amendments will initiate a substantive debate on compulsory testing in schools. I wish to be clear: Labour supports testing as it is outlined in the five-to-14 curriculum. We believe, however, that parents' views should be taken into account whenever we discuss the recently introduced concept of compulsory national testing in Scottish schools. It is, of course, a concept that goes against the principle of post-primary education in Scotland.
We have a five-to-14 curriculum that is based on assessment of the pupil. The pupil is tested at the discretion of the teacher. Following that assessment, it is decided which band of testing should be introduced. There is a history in Scotland of parental opposition to compulsory testing.
It was the Secretary of State, whom we have not seen this evening, who was responsible for seeking to introduce compulsory testing in primary schools. There was a widespread outcry from parents and teachers. As a consequence, an arrangement was brokered by the Minister of State, which resulted in a system of testing, which I confess has been operated with parental support to date. I do not understand why the Government have now seen fit to introduce a system of testing that is at odds with the criteria laid down in the five-to-14 curriculum.
The Government make much of parental choice. I do not understand, therefore, why they should be opposed to the amendment. After all, the purpose behind it is to ensure that parental rights are explicitly stated, and that parents must be given the right to withdraw their children from compulsory tests.
In Committee, we discovered some disturbing elements of the Government's proposals. They were not properly thought out. It seems that they were introduced more as a consequence of electioneering on the part of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), at the Conservative party conference than as a result of careful thought. The Government's proposals were foisted on the Committee at the last moment.
The House will recall that, in the other place, a Special Standing Committee took evidence from a number of notable experts. As that Committee was not aware that compulsory national testing was to be introduced, it was denied the opportunity to consult experts on Scottish education. The eleventh-hour attempt to introduce compulsory national testing is designed to hoodwink the people of Scotland and disguise the Government's intentions.
In considering the Bill in Committee, it became apparent that it was the Government's intention to introduce testing as soon as children arrived for their first year of secondary education. I contend that we are talking about a return to the 11-plus system. We are talking also about introducing a system that will be externally set and marked. It will therefore not be part of the critical testing that is embodied in effective teaching and learning. That is testing within the natural confines of the classroom, as part of the natural teaching process, which is honoured by good teachers as part of their attempt to draw children on into different grades in the five-to-14 curriculum.
Externally set tests mean that time is being taken from teaching during the first two years of secondary school. I reiterate my concern because we have seen a dip in pupil performance in S1 and S2. Rather than addressing that important matter, the Government seek to introduce bureaucratic external testing of young people. It is artificial, and it eats up valuable and sometimes limited time for teaching and learning.
If compulsory tests are introduced, children in secondary schools in Scotland will be tested in their first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth years. They will be the most tested young people in Europe. Such testing will not add anything to the quality of teaching in the classroom, or to the quality of information that is available to parents.
If the Government genuinely believe in parental choice, they must give parents the right, explicitly stated, to withdraw their children from the testing that I have described. It is not enough for the Minister to say, "If parents do not want their children to do it, they can withdraw." It must be explicitly stated in the Bill that parents have that right. Otherwise, we shall be back to the conflicts when the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) tried to introduce compulsory testing in primary schools. Children who will be going to secondary school in a few weeks' time are the same children whose parents withdrew them from compulsory testing in primary schools.
Compulsory testing is at odds with parents' requests, and with the genesis of the five-to-14 curriculum. Furthermore, it covers only three aspects of the curriculum. What will happen to the other aspects that are not being tested, bearing in mind the time that will be lost in teaching those subjects?
If the Government were genuine about trying to improve performance in S1 and S2, they would examine the problems experienced by children who had been tested in primary school. A significant number of children are tested up to level D under the five-to-14 curriculum at primary school, so when they go to secondary school they experience a fallow period. The Government would do better to consider such details and issues affecting overload, teachers and the resources available to produce materials to ensure that five-to-14 testing is upgraded for secondary schools, because many of the test materials used are the same as those used in primary schools.
Compulsory testing goes against the advice of educationists. It is an ideological move to reintroduce the 11-plus and streaming. The Minister has told us that Her Majesty's inspectorate is to conduct an examination of streaming. Why is he so determined to prejudge that examination?
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State suggested that to attempt to educate a pupil without testing is as absurd as running a business without keeping accounts. That is a fallacious analogy. The Minister is seeking to introduce a system of testing whereby schools would be run by external auditors.
Furthermore, the Government have not advanced convincing arguments about the Scottish Qualifications Authority. We have not had any advice about what the tests are likely to cost. In the first two years, 366,000 tests could be set. It is ludicrous that the Government have not sought to give us information on this, which suggests that the whole proposal has been ill thought out.
The amendments seek to introduce a critical element of parental involvement. They seek to ensure that we get rid of a system that does not support the best ethos of Scottish education, and they seek to put in context a move that has been introduced by the Government for the most spurious of reasons.
The Government complain that there has not been sufficient testing in S1 and S2, but fail to acknowledge that testing as such could have been available only from August 1994. The figures from which they work are outdated, and they fail to take into account the need to re-evaluate bands A to D in the five-to-14 curriculum.
I urge the House to support the amendments. They are commonsense amendments, that would strike a chord with Scotland's parents, teachers and educationists.
Mr. Welsh:
I shall speak to amendment No. 9, because I believe that consultation is of the essence.
The Government must listen to the views of those most affected by their proposals. The amendment says that, before making regulations, the Secretary of State
Previous votes proved the Labour party wrong on three counts: first, the voucher amendments were debated on Report; secondly, the Government won easily--so two predictions fall--and, finally, Labour does not propose to divide the House on amendment No. 4. If it does not do so, there is always the Scottish National party to force the issue.
The Government's novel approach to secondary testing has been a recent addition to the Bill, and therefore requires maximum scrutiny by us. It is a pity that it has not been scrutinised more. The Labour and Conservative parties seem to be rushing the Bill through. That, too, is a pity, because it is so important that it requires the widest scrutiny.
'; but before making such regulations he shall consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of local authorities and teachers.'.
"shall consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of local authorities and teachers."
Given the controversy, opposition and fears about testing, there must be some mechanism to express genuine consumer reaction. That is the purpose of amendment No. 9.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |