---

9.45 pm

Mrs. Gillan: We have had an extremely long debate on this group of amendments, which I think has generated more heat than light. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), all of whom made timely and pertinent interventions. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who, as I think Members on both sides of the House would agree, made an extremely passionate speech based on his own experience.

The group of amendments includes a Government amendment. In Committee, I undertook to table an amendment to ensure that it is the head teacher who selects the baseline assessment scheme to be used by the school. Amendment No. 65 does that. I must emphasise that there is agreement with our prime aim to ensure that every school has access to and uses a baseline assessment scheme that meets the criteria of the proposed national framework.

Amendment No. 65 acknowledges that the decision on which baseline assessment scheme to select is a matter of professional expertise and views on the content and style of schemes likely to be available and appropriate for the school. Such expertise lies with the head teacher, who is thus best placed to judge which scheme will be most suitable.

The Government however recognise how helpful consultation can be when formulating a decision--hence the requirement for the head teacher to consult the governing body when considering which scheme to select. The governing body's role is formally to adopt the scheme selected by the head teacher. That is consistent with the existing division of responsibilities between the governing body and the head teacher on school-level policy decisions.

Amendment No. 65 also provides for the rare occasion when a head teacher is unable to select a scheme, perhaps because of illness. It adds a contingent provision for the governing body to carry out the duty if the head teacher is unable to select a scheme within a reasonable time.

27 Jan 1997 : Column 117

The amendment puts back--with the agreement, I know, of Opposition Members--the requirement for schools maintained by a local education authority to consider the scheme selected by their authority before deciding which scheme to select for their own purposes. This recognises that LEAs have a role to play here, and that primary schools do look to their LEAs for advice. It reflects what I am sure will happen in practice, but it does no harm to provide for it on the statute book.

Turning to other matters, I strongly resist new clause 9 and amendments Nos. 50 and 51. We have designed baseline assessment to inform teachers about what children can do on entry to school. That information will enable teachers to match work to children's needs and abilities and, over time, will enable value added to be measured.

There has never been any intention that the information derived from baseline assessment could be used for selection purposes. The Bill provides explicitly that the assessment will take place after children have been enrolled at school. If a pupil then transfers to another school, his baseline assessment details will be transferred to the new school. However, that will not happen until after it is known to which school the pupil has transferred. Therefore, it will be impossible for schools to select--or deselect--pupils on the basis of baseline assessment.

There are a variety of uses to which information taken from the assessments might be put--I have already mentioned the example of measuring value added. Schools might want to use the information to target resources and, of course, it will indicate where further assessment of special educational needs might be required--an issue that was discussed in Committee. The professional use by teachers of baseline assessment information is not something that we should presume to prescribe or inhibit.

Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Lady said that baseline assessment was not to be used by primary schools for selection, so why does she not accept the amendment?

Mrs. Gillan: I do not consider that it is necessary to put that on the face of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman continues to listen to what I have to say, he will deduce my reasons for that.

The idea that statutory baseline assessment could be used for selection purposes is a red herring. The important need now is not to create confusion among teachers or parents. I can only hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) now sees fit to withdraw new clause 9 and that she does not press the associated amendments Nos. 50 and 51.

Much has been made in the debate of the issue of primary selection. At present, the regime governing selective admissions is exactly the same for primary schools as it is for secondary schools. Admission authorities would have to publish statutory proposals if the proportion of pupils they wanted to admit by selection would amount to a significant change in character of the school. In the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, selecting up to 15 per cent. of a school's intake, whether the school is primary or secondary, does not constitute a significant change of character.

The Bill sets out a new statutory baseline of 20 per cent. for selective admissions. We believe that that should apply to primary as well as to secondary schools, but we

27 Jan 1997 : Column 118

do not believe that many primary schools will wish to select pupils by general ability. However, a few might want to select by aptitude for a particular subject, such as music. In any case, we believe that primary schools should have the option of selecting a proportion of their pupils without central approval, as they have now, and that the lowest of the new thresholds should therefore apply to them. That is what the Bill gives them.

It will continue to be for admission authorities to determine the method that they use to assess ability or aptitude. We do not intend to tie admission authorities' hands in that respect. Therefore, if an admission authority decided to use the statutory baseline assessment materials being produced by SCAA or assessments from accredited baseline assessment schemes for an earlier pre-entry assessment, there is nothing to prevent the authority from doing so.

I repeat: there has never been any intention that the information derived from statutory baseline assessment could be used for selection purposes. Statutory baseline assessment will take place after children have been enrolled at school.

Tonight, in debating these amendments again, we have heard the Opposition parties stand fair and square against selection; against choices for parents. Where will they stop? Will they abolish selection by religious commitment? What about selection by home-school agreement or selection by mortgage? Parents are prepared to pay a lot of money to live in the catchment areas of good schools. Would the Opposition prevent people from choosing where to live?

I reject all the arguments that have been made by the Opposition tonight. I commend Government amendment No. 65 and reject new clause 9.

Ms Estelle Morris: What a mess. One of the prime parts of the Bill before us is to extend primary selection, and the Under-Secretary of State has just said that she does not believe that anyone would use it anyway. I should have thought that, in the dying days of a Government, the Minister could have used legislative time to tackle some of the problems that confront primary school children and primary schools instead of passing a measure that, by her own admission, she does not believe that schools welcome, need or will want to use.

What a mess on baseline assessment. The only reason that the Opposition were forced to table amendments and new clauses today was that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for--

Mr. Forth: Mid-Worcestershire.

Ms Morris: The hon. Member for--at the moment--Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) was engaged in an exchange in Committee in which he made it quite clear that

"the concept and practice of baseline assessment is now widely agreed as being achievable, practical and desirable. To the extent that this is so . . . a school should be able to make an assessment of a child, even at the age of five."--[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 November 1996; c. 95-96.]

That was in the context of my asking him whether he would say that under no circumstances would baseline investment be used as a means of allowing selective entry at primary school level. As a result of his inadequacy in

27 Jan 1997 : Column 119

explaining the Government position, his confusion and his inability to answer the question, "How will schools select?" we tabled new clause 9.

Let us get this straight: the Under-Secretary of State agrees with what new clause 9 says, but she refuses to vote for it. What sort of Government are prepared to leave legislation on the statute book that confuses parents and misleads teachers because of the remarks of the Minister of State, and ignore the opportunity to put the record straight? As a result of the confusion among Ministers, there is only one may of making it clear that baseline assessment must not and will not be used for selective admission of children to primary school, and that is to put new clause 9 and amendments Nos. 50 and 51 on the face of the Bill.

Mrs. Gillan rose--

Ms Morris: I am sorry; it is too late. The Under-Secretary of State had her chance and failed to make Government policy clear.

The new clause is important, not only because of what it does to clarify primary selection, but because it will save baseline assessment from the confusion that the Government have thrown it into. It is a good scheme--a good measure. It has the support of the Opposition parties, and it should never have been mixed up with techniques of primary selection. The Under-Secretary loses the chance to make the record clear.

I want to add some comments to those already made about the contribution by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He spoke with passion and he is genuinely concerned about too many children in this country who do not achieve and who lose opportunity. However, the world has moved on from the days when we had the 11-plus. In those days, we had an economy that could run if we only developed the skills of the few. We now have an economy that needs all adults to raise their standards and reach their potential.

The problem with selection is that it labels children failures. Has anyone ever heard a child say, "I passed for secondary modern"? What happens with the 11-plus is that one passes for grammar school or fails the 11-plus. The 11-plus institutionalises those low expectations. I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East that there is a real challenge to raise standards in some schools throughout the country; but returning to the days when we labelled children failures is not the way to meet that challenge. The way is to face up to the challenge of ensuring that every school raises every pupil's ability, so that we no longer have to rely on an escape route for the few.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:--

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 303.

---