| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
7.44 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The problem with a debate such as this is that most of the argument consists of saying, "This happened after this and therefore must be caused by this." It is the good old post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument. In fact, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that the reason why one in three pupils now go on to higher education is that 90 per cent. of schools are comprehensive and therefore it is all entirely thanks to the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he is so proud of the fact that 90 per cent. of schools are comprehensive as a direct consequence of the Labour party and if he is so worried about the way that the education system is going, it is not unreasonable for Conservative Members to continue to point out that the schools are substantially run by that self-same Labour party with its Liberal allies. If the system is failing so many children, it is perfectly reasonable to claim that the Labour party is responsible for that--just as it is trying to claim that it is responsible for one in three pupils going on to higher education.
Like other hon. Members, I want to spend a little time talking about discipline. We should spend rather more time supporting the teaching profession rather than attacking it. Most teachers have a fairly rough time. It is difficult to teach in any circumstances, but it is much harder to teach when we have, for various reasons, adopted a policy that as many children as possible should be included in as many as possible classes in mainstream education. It means that a great deal of the time of teachers is disproportionately spent containing children who, for whatever reason, find it difficult to fit into conventional education.
We do not do nearly enough to facilitate peer support for teachers. Teachers who have a problem should not feel ashamed to talk to their colleagues in other local schools, who have had a similar problem, about how to resolve it. We should do a great deal more to facilitate that as it would be very helpful.
I have said for many years that, as we all know, the key figure in developing education in a school is the head teacher. We should take a leaf out of the armed services' book and identify people who are likely to become head teachers and give them the experience of some form of staff college, where they could meet others, learn strategies and learn how to cope. I have tried hard to develop that plan and came very close to doing so with a private benefactor, but sadly he withdrew at the last moment.
It is not attacking teachers to say that we must continue to make it easier quickly to get rid of teachers who, for whatever reason, do not measure up to the job. There is
11 Nov 1996 : Column 86
This House should do rather less of trying to teach teachers how to teach. Now that we have in place a measure of whether schools are delivering, we should spend less time wondering how teachers deliver. If they are delivering good results, I do not care whether some of them are doing so by chalk and talk, some by project work and some by team work; I am concerned about the output, not the input. The input should be a matter of professional judgment.
I believe that the Office for Standards in Education is absolutely right--in the case of Ridings school and in other cases--to point out that there is no discipline problem in schools in which classes are well taught, and that, if children's attention is engaged, most of the time there is not a discipline problem. As I said, we must support, encourage and retrain teachers who are finding it difficult to teach well.
I believe that we should look rather more carefully at the policy of integrating so many children into mainstream classes so often, because it puts an enormous pressure on even the most highly motivated teacher. The other day, I spoke to a textile teacher who could not allow one child on to a sewing machine, as he would probably hurt himself, although she could let him participate in the art class, because he can draw peacefully. The problem is that the child might then feel discriminated against. Just as we have rethought the issue of asylums for mentally ill patients, we should re-examine this issue to discover whether we are asking teachers to take too many children into the mainstream.
I believe--it will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Minister of State--that we should continue to encourage, and extend enormously, the use of volunteers in schools. Community Service Volunteers--of which I am a trustee--has developed a strategy for persuading local firms to release some of their employees into local schools during the lunch hour. The programme is enormously supportive of schools and of children, who may be slow learners or very fast learners. It is also extraordinarily good for employees, who learn many new skills which they had not realised that they had.
In the current climate, the idea of reintroducing corporal punishment in schools is absurd. The proposition that children--most of whom have had far too much violence in their background--should be beaten at school is absurd. In principle, I am not against corporal punishment in cases in which schools are supportive of pupils, pupils understand the use of it and parents support it. Most of the children we are talking about beating, however, are not in that situation. Moreover, their parents would be grossly unsupportive.
I do not think that we are doing nearly enough about peer learning and service learning. It has been well demonstrated that if one teaches someone something didactically, those taught will retain about 5 per cent. of the subject matter. If they are then asked to demonstrate
11 Nov 1996 : Column 87
Service learning also has enormous potential. Service learning is regarded by many schools as a very valuable extra add-on if they have the time. However, going out into the community, measuring old people's homes and backyards, estimating quantities of paint, for example, and then buying it not only motivates children--who suddenly see the point of all that boring mathematics or geometry--but bridges the gap between the generations in a community. It brings the community and the school together. Service learning, far from being a bolt-on extra, is fundamental to learning.
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North):
I have already spoken on the Education Bill, in last week's Queen's Speech debate, so I shall be brief. I agree entirely with the emphasis that all hon. Members and the Government have placed on standards. We live in a time of tremendous challenge and constant change. The creation of a learning society is essential, and education has become a crucial Government function and responsibility.
The Government have decided that they wish to encourage higher standards through the establishment of competition. They wish to encourage competition among schools, which will compete for pupils; among parents and children, who will compete for places in schools; and among service providers, who will compete to provide services to schools. All of that is backed up by a testing regime for pupils, which is geared to the publication of league tables and is supposed to provide information in the competitive process. On top of that, there is an inspection regime, which is intended to keep teachers on their toes in this competitive race.
As I have argued before, I believe that that is a seriously dysfunctional model. It is not relevant to Wales, and it is not acceptable in Wales. However, that is not to deny the need for processes to achieve excellence, rigour and rising standards in our schools. In this debate, I should like to examine some of the Bill's provisions and consider how relevant or irrelevant they might be in creating a system for ensuring excellence in schools in Wales--a pattern that, at some stage, might be emulated, even in England.
11 Nov 1996 : Column 88
Part VII of the Bill provides for the creation of a Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority by merging the two bodies that currently cover curriculum in schools and vocational qualifications. That is a step in the right direction. If we are legislating for the needs of Wales, however--which is what we are supposed to be doing--we must be far more radical. Currently there is an inefficient division of functions in Wales, with an inefficient organisational structure to match. There is every reason for merging the Qualifications, Curriculum and National Authority--the new body--and the Welsh Joint Education Committee, to provide a single body that is responsible for assessment, testing and examination. Such a change would achieve the same results, because a merged body would perform the same functions.
The same body would be responsible for curriculum development. Is it not right to link curriculum development with assessment of how the curriculum is being delivered? It would give us a far more efficient--including cost-efficient--cohesive and effective approach.
More controversially, I would incorporate into the merged body--albeit in distinct departments--two other functions: an inspectorate, which is currently based at the Welsh Office; and the advisory services that are currently provided, at least in part, by local authorities.
Following local government reorganisation, provision of advisory services is problematic, because local authorities are smaller and simply do not have the economies of scale to provide the range of services that the old counties had. Authorities are obliged to set up ad hoc, cross-border arrangements, which are inherently unsatisfactory. I think that a high-quality advisory service can be achieved if it is operated at an all-Wales level, although many of its personnel would be placed locally.
The inspection process within my model would be very different from the current, threatening--it is threatening, as teachers' experience tells us--model. The inspection process in my model would involve constant, interactive inspection, with the provision of support, advice and professional development.
The Welsh education body that we would create, which could be called CAIG--Cyngor Addysg I Gymru--would consist not of Welsh Office appointees, but of the representatives of interested parties, particularly local authorities. The integration of functions at an all-Wales level would make good sense and would provide a powerful mechanism for raising standards, which is much needed in some parts of Wales.
I support the proposals in part VI for compulsory base line testing. I have no difficulty with that. Base line testing and comparisons based on the information gathered from it are essential to monitor the progress of individual pupils and to identify their needs, as well as to monitor the effectiveness of schools in achieving pupils' cognitive development at various stages. The subsequent test results would give information on schools' successes. Those results would have to be provided to CAIG, our Welsh education council, which would have the power to intervene to provide analysis of the reasons for any failure and to offer support.
Part VIII provides for the inspection of some local education authority functions by the current inspection system. Using the existing inspectorate is objectionable. Local education authorities are democratic bodies and are already subjected to too much central Government diktat.
11 Nov 1996 : Column 89
I oppose the provisions in part IV to encourage the growth of the grant-maintained sector. Local education authorities alone should be responsible for funding public sector schools, which are the majority in Wales, where we have a very small private sector, and for strategic functions. However, that should be within a national framework, because education, as we say, is a national service delivered locally. The national level should therefore have an input on the way in which that strategic function should be discharged. In any case, the funding for schools comes largely from the block grant.
It is therefore important for local education authorities to be able to show that they have an effective strategy for providing places in their areas. They should be obliged to provide central Government--whether in the United Kingdom as a whole or a Welsh central Government--with a schools structure plan, just as they currently have to bring forward a structure plan for the planning process. That would form part of the discussion in the negotiation process for allocating block grant.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |