| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.27 pm
Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs): Conservative Members have not raised a party political or general political matter. We are repeating what the people in schools in our constituencies are saying to us. I have been visiting schools in West Sussex for the past three years and, in the past six months, I have been overwhelmed by complaints from heads and teachers, many of whom are not our political supporters, about the excessive burden of paperwork. Labour Members seem to be particularly touchy about us discussing practical rather than doctrinaire problems.
There is a growing gap between propaganda and reality. In my part of the world, schools are having to sack teachers because the overall effect of the massive cut in standard spending assessment money means that there is no extra money for schools. The gap between expectancy and reality is enormous.
I want particularly to deal with class sizes because schools in my constituency typically serve communities, and their intake numbers vary by between 40 and 60 pupils each year. Schools have managed by having two classes of about 30 or one class of 40 with an assistant. Heads have expressed bitter criticism about the fact that they are now faced with having too much mixed-age teaching or simply refusing to take pupils in years in which they have a large intake. Other schools are often eight or 10 miles away and it is a nightmare for parents to transport their children to a different school, so schools feel obliged to serve their communities. For schools of that size, a mandatory class size of 30 does not work; it creates more problems than it solves.
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead):
I am pleased to be winding up this important and interesting debate, in which several of my hon. Friends have made excellent speeches. One of the most noticeable features of the speeches by Labour Members was the reluctance to defend the Government's record. They wanted to talk about the past, not the present, under their Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has pointed out, we see a gap between the Government's propaganda and what is happening in schools. Sadly, there is a lack of understanding among Government Front Benchers--and Government Back Benchers--of what is happening as a result of their policy. As my hon. Friend has said, the points that we are raising are the same ones that teachers and head teachers raise
when we visit schools. They are upset, concerned and worried about the burdens that are being put on them and the level of bureaucracy with which they are having to cope under this Government. They are especially concerned because, frankly, they had not expected that from this Government. In future, they will not believe the promises and pledges that Labour makes on the doorstep.
We have exchanged statistics in this debate. Indeed, I might very well quote a few in a minute. The debate is important not just because it is about bureaucracy and paperwork, but because it is about what happens in the education of children in the classroom; about educational standards, and how we raise them; and about how the Government's multiplicity of so-called initiatives is tying down teachers and schools, reducing diversity and choice and taking teachers away from the job of improving standards.
What initiative did the Government take to cut red tape? They set up a working party, conducted a review, came up with a report, and followed it with a Department for Education and Employment circular. Following the working party's report a year ago, what did the Government say? They said that they would make every effort to ensure that the report's recommendations bore fruit. What action were they going to take? They were going to set up another division in the DfEE. This must be the only Government whose response to cutting bureaucracy is to employ more bureaucrats.
What has happened since the report was issued in January 1998? Three months and 59 guidance notes, directives, surveys and other documents later, the Government announced another relaunch. Two months and 48 guidance notes, directives, surveys and other documents later, the Government announced another relaunch. One month and 21 guidance notes, directives, surveys and other documents later, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), stood up at a local education authority conference in Torquay and pledged his personal crusade to cut bureaucracy. What happened in the following six months? One hundred and ninety-four guidance notes, directives, surveys and other documents.
It would be farcical if it were not so important, because this is not just about the numbers of Government documents; it is about the fact that, the more time is taken
by teachers to deal with the paperwork, the less time they have to educate children and to improve standards in the classroom.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker)--teachers want to teach. That is why we raised this issue tonight. Teachers do not want to be stuck looking at paperwork, dealing with forms and reports and reading endless directives and guidelines from the Government.
The Minister for School Standards said that everything was all right because, in September 1998, the Government had decided that they would approach things differently on bureaucracy. She said that, since last September, it was all perfectly all right and there were no problems. I see the Minister shake her head, but she told us that, since last September, the bureaucracy had actually reduced. Perhaps she needs to read the survey commissioned last month by the NAT/UWT and conducted by the Electoral Reform Society, which showed that the situation had not changed in 60 per cent. of schools, and had got worse in a quarter of schools.
It is little wonder that, today, the general secretary of the NAS/UWT issued a press release headed, "Bureaucracy Bugs Teachers. Workload Worries Remain". It says:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Not my ideas; the hon. Lady's.
Miss Johnson:
I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to challenge the hon. Lady's ideas about our ambitions for the education service. Does she not share those ambitions, and does she not believe that ambition for the future of our schools and the education of our children has a right and proper place? Does her memory not extend back to where mine does--I am sure that it does, Mr. Deputy Speaker--and remember things like the pantechnicons that arrived delivering national curriculum documents, full of unnecessary prescription, to schools throughout the country, at a time when legislation rained down upon the education service year after year? Does her memory not go back--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Lady has gone far beyond what she would normally be allowed.
Mrs. May:
After that intervention, I hope that the hon. Lady has no ambitions in the House. The answer is that we believe in raising educational standards. We are
I suggest that the hon. Lady listens to the teachers' views. I quote some comments that were made during the survey commissioned by the NAS/UWT, conducted last month, in which teachers were asked,
"Whenever I meet teachers I hear cries to cut the bureaucracy to let us do our jobs."
One might think that those quotations were from speeches of my hon. Friends in this debate, or perhaps even of disgruntled governors or disaffected teachers. Surprising though it may seem, given the nature and tone of the speech of the Minister for School Standards, who seemed reluctant to accept that there was any problem about bureaucracy in schools, every one of those quotations was from a Minister, as an initiative to cut bureaucracy and red tape in our schools was launched and relaunched.
"We want to make sure that teachers spend their time teaching and not in unnecessary bureaucracy."
"Teachers should be free to teach not slaves to paperwork."
"Raising standards and reducing unnecessary paperwork in schools to allow teachers to teach are issues that go hand in hand."
"Teachers should be able to concentrate on pupils' work, not paperwork."
"The Government is addicted to one initiative after another. The need to provide booster classes and after-hours support for children to meet ambitious Government targets recently added to the excessive workload being placed upon teachers. Individual, school, LEA and National Targets are raining down in their thousands upon teachers. Mismanagement of the Literacy Hour has not helped and the forthcoming numeracy strategy is awaited with trepidation by many primary teachers.
Miss Melanie Johnson:
First, I should like to challenge your idea that ambition is something--
The Government will have to get a grip on this problem, otherwise its bureaucratic proposals for appraisal and management performance, outlined in the recently published Green Paper, will cause the education system to sink under its own weight."
"What are the problems associated with workload which still need to be addressed at your workplace?"
Some answers were:
"There are too many bits of paperwork. What we are supposed to be doing is educating children."
"I would think that the main thing is a lot of extra paperwork. Multiple copies of planning sheets and assessments are time consuming, as is the admin for literacy hour."
"Initiatives to try and raise achievement are causing an increase in workload, for example targeting."
"There are not enough hours in the day to get through everything. You can't teach and do paperwork at the same time--one has to suffer and it's usually the teaching."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |