---

Mr. Forth: I should say straight away that we are as concerned as anyone that, where statutory proposals are made by local education authorities, they should be considered with the greatest care and that the decisions made should take full account of the views of parents and other schools in the area. We are also conscious of the need for proposals to be dealt with as quickly as possible to avoid unnecessary uncertainty. That is surely particularly important where a school is proposed for closure, although since closure proposals require approval under section 169 of the Education Act 1996, and not section 37, they would not be affected by the proposed new clause. The proposals affected would therefore be those that are less controversial.

In our view, the existing statutory procedures ensure that full consideration is given to each proposal. LEAs are required to consult all interested parties before they bring forward proposals. There is then a two-month period, during which local people, other schools in the area, the Funding Agency for Schools and the Further Education Funding Council may submit objections to the LEA. There is a further statutory period of one month for those objections to be passed to the Secretary of State with the LEA's comments.

In considering the proposals, the Department has available not only the statutory notice but a detailed statement of case, any objections that have been made, the LEA's comments on those objections and any other comments or letters of support that may be sent to the Secretary of State. Specialist advice is then sought from Her Majesty's inspectorate. Where appropriate, Ministers may also receive delegations from opponents of a particular proposal. All the evidence is carefully considered before the Secretary of State reaches a decision.

Let me emphasise again that, through the existing procedures, all the concerned parties have an opportunity to make their views known at the consultation stage and, if they are still not satisfied, by objecting to the proposals.

In our view, the establishment of a public inquiry to deal with some proposals would be unnecessarily expensive, would duplicate the work done by the LEA at the consultation stage and would seriously delay consideration of the proposals. At the end of the day, the decision would still rest with the Secretary of State. For those reasons we do not consider that the new clause should be accepted.

8 pm

Mr. Kilfoyle: The Minister missed the point completely. I do not doubt one iota of what he said about the current procedures, but the point of the new clause is to lighten the load that those procedures create, not only for local authorities but for central Government. We believed that the Minister was an advocate of far less bureaucracy than currently obtains, and the new clause

27 Jan 1997 : Column 91

would facilitate the removal of bureaucracy--it would certainly facilitate the removal of the repetition within the current process. Nevertheless, given that the Minister has chosen to retain the current powers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 9

Exclusion of baseline assessment scheme from selection

'( )--(1) No baseline assessment scheme designed or adopted in accordance with sections 31-34 shall be used for the purposes of the selection of pupils as to school admissions whether by reference to ability or aptitude or otherwise.
(2) The duty on a school governing body to adopt a scheme under section 32(1) and the duty to carry out assessment under such a scheme under section 33(1) shall be undertaken soley for the purposes for which the scheme was designed in accordance with section 31.'.--[Ms Estelle Morris.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 50, in clause 31, page 27, line 16, at end insert

'and no assessment under such a scheme shall be used for the purposes of selection as to school admissions whether by reference to ability or aptitude or otherwise.'.

Government amendment No. 65.

No. 51, in clause 33, page 28, line 12, at end insert

'and such an assessment shall be undertaken solely for the purposes specified in section 31 above.'.

Ms Morris: I note that the group includes Government amendment No. 65, with which the Opposition have some sympathy, given that it was tabled in response to points made in Committee. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for reflecting on the issues and to state our broad agreement with that amendment.

As we know, the main provisions of part I propose to extend selection in primary and secondary schools without the need to publish a statutory notice or to conduct the subsequent consultation. The proposal to expand selection in primary schools is a backward step that will find little support, but the purpose of the new clause is to ensure that baseline assessment is not used by schools as part of any selection process.

It is astonishing that, at a time when our primary schools face so many problems--class size, unfit and crumbling buildings, low literacy levels and poor teacher morale, to name but a few--the Government should find legislative time to introduce a measure that is irrelevant to primary pupils' needs. Currently, primary schools, like secondary schools, can select up to 15 per cent. of their intake without publishing a statutory notice. The Government intend to increase that limit to 20 per cent. It is strange that a party that spent its time in government in the 1970s closing more selective schools than any other Government in the history of this nation should reintroduce selection in its farewell piece of legislation in the 1990s.

27 Jan 1997 : Column 92

Why is that happening? What is it all about? Can it be that Conservative Members have been bombarded with letters from parents clamouring for the introduction of a five-plus and a seven-plus? Are schools lobbying the Government, day in and day out, appealing to Ministers to allow them to select children at five or at seven? Is there new evidence to show that segregating pupils at five and seven will help to raise standards?

In Committee, the Minister could offer no evidence of any demand from anywhere for an extension of selection at primary level, but this part of the Bill is even more ill thought out. He admitted that he did not even know how many primary schools had used the existing power and had exercised their right to select. There we have it: a flagship piece of legislation--a half-a-flagship piece of legislation now--to establish a primary grammar school in every town, yet the Minister does not know whether parents or schools want it. He does not know how many primary schools already select or the effects--if any--of the selection that is already taking place. In Committee, he said:

"joyously, I might say--we do not know the answer."

He added:

"I am able to display a degree of indifference".--[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 November 1996; c. 94.]

We would not mind the Minister's indifference or joyous ignorance so much if the provisions of part I were only irrelevant, but the trouble is that they are potentially damaging. The arguments against selection are well known and well made: it weakens parental choice and preference; it institutionalises low expectations of children; and it labels too many of our young children as failures. All the arguments that are self-evident in respect of selection at the age of 11 are even more self-evident in respect of children aged five or seven. I do not believe that primary schools want to select but, as long as the provision exists in legislation, schools may choose to deal with the problem of demand for places exceeding supply by selecting on ability or aptitude. This part of the Bill cannot be ignored--it is irrelevant but has to be tackled because it is dangerous.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): There are many hon. Members in the Chamber who did not sit on the Committee. May I inquire whether, in Committee, the Government dealt with the inevitable knock-on effect of the exercise of this scheme in respect of a journey to school from the neighbouring area? What was the Minister's response--if any--to that most disruptive effect on parents and pupils within any neighbourhood or town?

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend's interest in education and matters of selection and his support for comprehensive education are well known. One of the problems we encountered in Committee was that the Government failed to understand that, if one school decides to select, that decision affects other schools. The legislation not only gives individual schools the right to select, but creates troublesome consequences for all the other schools in the area. My hon. Friend gave some examples of the difficulties that might be caused.

At primary level, the vast majority of parents choose to send their children to local schools. There is, in most communities, a strong notion of a primary school serving

27 Jan 1997 : Column 93

its local neighbourhood. Children attend the same school as their brothers and sisters and their neighbours' children. They identify with the school in their community. The primary school is both parents' and pupils' introduction to the school system. That identity--that association of the primary school with its community--helps to give primary children stability. Selection at primary level threatens that. If schools select 20 per cent. of their intake through academic selection, the same number of children may be refused the right to attend their local school.

The 11-plus examination notoriously failed to predict accurately the academic potential of children. It often got it wrong and thousands of children paid the price. Why do Ministers think that a child's academic potential can be accurately predicted at the ages of five and seven, when we know that it cannot be done when the child is 11? What concerned us most in Committee was the Minister's suggestion that baseline assessment could be used by primary schools as the means of selecting pupils. That was worrying for two reasons. First, it will not work and, secondly and more seriously, it is a threat to the emerging consensus about the merits of baseline assessment.

There is a growing appreciation of the value of baseline assessment and the Minister knows that that part of the Bill was welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. Such assessment is a sensible approach to determining what a child knows and what the child can do when he or she starts school. It is useful for setting targets so that teachers can ensure that every pupil makes appropriate progress. In Labour-led local authorities where baseline assessment has been introduced and pioneered, it has already been shown that it can help to raise standards.

As far as I know, until the Minister spoke in Committee, no one had thought of using baseline assessment as a means of selecting children for primary school entry. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority document makes it clear that it is not designed for that purpose. SCAA outlines four purposes of baseline assessment--to identify the child's strength and learning needs, to enable the teacher to plan appropriate teaching and learning activities, to identify the child's individual learning needs, including special educational needs, and to provide information that will inform future discussion with parents about their child's learning process. It is clear from the SCAA consultation document that none of the purposes of baseline assessment is fit for use as entrance tests at primary level.

The Minister must understand--he did not do so in Committee--that there is a vast difference between a technique, such as baseline assessment, that can identify a child's strengths and needs at a specific moment, and an assessment that can guess what his or her future academic achievement or potential might be.

I, for one, do not believe that it is possible to develop an effective five-plus or seven-plus assessment. I believe that it would be damaging to do so. It would not be welcomed by parents or schools. However, in many ways, that is not the purpose of new clause 9. The Minister has caused a serious problem: he has muddied the waters on baseline assessment and he has risked damaging the consensus that has been constructed around its introduction. It cannot be a way of diagnostically assessing a pupil and a predictor of academic ability.

27 Jan 1997 : Column 94

New clause 9 would make clear once and for all what many of us believed--that baseline assessment should not be used as a means of selecting pupils at primary level. As baseline assessment is good for schools, good for children and good for parents, the Government should take no more risks with it. They should ensure that they take the opportunity to make it clear that baseline assessment was never intended to be used, and never will be used, as a way of allowing primary schools to select their pupils for intake at the age of five or seven.

---