House of Commons
Thursday 18 March 1999
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
The Secretary of State was asked--
Education SSA (Cheshire)
1. Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton): What recent representations he has received on the education standard spending assessment for Cheshire. [75574]
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I have received a number of representations from Cheshire welcoming the £13.8 million increase in standard spending assessment and the fact that, this year, the revenue support grant matches that increase. That was never true of such allocations under the previous Government.
Mrs. Winterton: Although I welcome any increase in real terms in education expenditure in Cheshire, does the Secretary of State accept that the present flawed methodology disadvantages shire counties such as Cheshire--compared with London and the south-east--in respect of area cost adjustment and pupil weighting? Will he introduce a reform of that methodology rather than leaving it to fossilise for a further three years?
Mr. Blunkett: I can promise that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will not leave the methodology to fossilise for 18 years, and that will make a difference. The area cost adjustment and the additional educational needs element are serious issues and we accept that there is a requirement to get them right. The problem was that the Local Government Association and others could not come up with an agreed programme of change in time. I would very much welcome the hon. Lady's contribution in that matter.
Our allocation of money under the standards fund--from which Cheshire has already received £8 million--and of direct funding for class size reductions and nursery expansion is being undertaken fairly, and that funding is in addition to the standard spending assessment announcements.
School Building Programme
2. Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk): If he will make a statement on measures to tackle the backlog in the school building programme. [75575]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): The Government have made significant extra resources available to help local authorities and school governing bodies tackle the backlog in the school building programme. In July 1997, we introduced the £1.085 billion new deal for schools. The comprehensive spending review has provided an additional £1.5 billion for schools capital, and a further £660 million to support private finance initiative projects. In total, we estimate that some £5.4 billion will be available for investment in school buildings over the next three years. In respect of this year's new deal for schools round, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to be able to announce the outcomes before Easter.
Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Having seen the backlog build up in Norfolk over 20 years, I appreciate the Government's making that matter a priority. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that, as we enter the next millennium, our teachers should feel that their workplaces are suitable for it? The bids received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will include many categories, but does my hon. Friend agree that we have been making do with mobile classrooms in Norfolk for far too long? He will be aware that, at Smithdon county high school in Hunstanton, far too many teachers have had mobile classrooms as their workplace for far too long. Will he ensure that careful consideration--and, it is to be hoped, a positive answer--are given to the part of the £32 million bid for the county of Norfolk that relates to that problem?
Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend's reference to the school in Hunstanton. I acknowledge that standards are driven up by good-quality provision of school building and that teachers need to be able to teach in good, healthy working environments. We inherited a substantial backlog from the previous Government and we are now investing at a much higher level than they ever did; by the end of this Parliament, we shall be investing twice as much every year as they invested in any year during which they were in power.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): The additional money for education is appreciated throughout the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree that many public bodies, including education authorities, own a great deal of property and assets which are underused and could be sold to raise funds? Will he encourage the raising of money to be reinvested in new building and to upgrade the school estate?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; that is why we are encouraging local education authorities to develop asset management plans in which they consider all the schools in their area and make a planned assessment of the maintenance, replacement and new investment that is needed for each school. Those plans
will set out locally agreed priorities for capital expenditure and the approach proposed for tackling them. For that reason, we are holding consultations on the overall capital strategy and have provided a small amount to help local education authorities to develop those plans. We believe that that will lead to rational decisions on resources and better value for money for the teachers and pupils in the constituencies that we all represent.Literacy Hour
3. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): What is his assessment of the effectiveness of the literacy hour in primary schools; and if he will make a statement. [75576]
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Almost all schools are now teaching the daily literacy hour, which is having a positive impact on teaching methods and organisation of lessons. The literacy hour has already raised standards in schools that took part in the pilot national literacy project. Evaluations of the project, published in December by Ofsted and the National Foundation for Educational Research, show that, in less than two years, children who started some way below the national average in their reading scores made progress of between eight months and a year above what would normally be expected.
Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware of the Scottish Office-funded research into synthetic phonics? That research showed not only that children taught by that method were nine months ahead in their reading ability but that less than 10 per cent. had reading ages more than 12 months behind their chronological age, as compared with nearly a third of children taught by the analytical phonics method? Does the Minister agree that, in this era of national targets and nationally agreed teaching strategies, the Government have a duty to ensure that classroom teachers are aware of the most recent research so that they can improve and develop their teaching methods and achieve the demanding targets for success in reading at key stage 2?
Ms Morris: I think perhaps we should not pick arguments with our Scottish colleagues when no arguments exist. My hon. Friend's comments show that the Government have succeeded in getting phonics accepted as a good way of teaching children to read. That is the focus of her question. We shall always reflect on the evidence about which phonics are best. However, synthetic and other phonics are included in the national literacy strategy that is taught to children in England.
I believe that the research conducted in Scotland involved between eight and 12 schools, whereas the national literacy strategy is based on good-quality evidence gathered from the national literacy project. As always, we shall base our policies on good evidence to ensure that children are taught to read and write in the most effective manner. That is our standard.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
Does the Minister agree that the best step that could be taken to improve literacy in primary schools would be to publish the results of the tests that children take at seven as well as the average amount of money that is spent on each child and the average class size in each school? We could
Ms Morris:
One wonders why the Conservative party did not do any of those things when it was in power.
Ms Morris:
The hon. Gentleman will not be here much longer if he tries to wriggle out of any responsibility for the previous Government's actions.
There is nothing more important than ensuring that youngsters between five and seven learn to read and write as effectively as possible. If they do not learn those basic skills by that age, they will not be able to access the rest of the curriculum and they will become disaffected and disillusioned. The Government have already taken action not only on the literacy strategy but on class sizes. We have also ensured that information is available to parents. We have acted speedily to ensure that the information that is available to the public and to the wider community is more meaningful in terms of value added and can be measured from baseline assessments.
There is already evidence that small class sizes in the important first year make a real difference. The Government are definitely taking credit for the fact that all the essential elements are in place. We will ensure that today's youngsters aged five to seven get a chance that their predecessors did not enjoy under the previous Government.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks (Croydon, North):
I have attended four or five literacy hours, and already my spelling is showing some improvement--although there is no room for complacency. More important, I have found that children enjoy literacy hours, which are becoming a popular feature of primary school life. Does the Minister have any observations to make at this stage about the applicability of the literacy hour--particularly the reading of the text at the beginning--to the most able children, who may want to turn to the next page or even the next book, and to those who are struggling with literacy and who may need more intensive support on a one-to-one basis?
Ms Morris:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. My experience of visiting primary schools in September was that children welcomed the literacy hour. Children like the sense of order, the pattern and the pace, and they know that they are improving. I take seriously my hon. Friend's points about our most able children and those who learn less quickly. He will be pleased to hear that the evidence demonstrates that all children, whether the most able or those with special needs, make progress under the national literacy strategy. That is good news for all children.
We shall reflect on further advice to make sure both that the hour is used to the best effect for more able children and that those with special educational needs are properly supported. The Government will base our proposals on evidence of what works and will return to the matter in the near future.
Mr. David Willetts (Havant):
The Minister will know that that is not the evidence of the recent survey by the
Ms Morris:
The hon. Gentleman must decide when he would prefer to believe. If he wants to believe the evidence of the ATL and teacher unions, let him do so, but I would sooner believe the evidence of Ofsted, NFER and independent research, which demonstrates that the literacy strategy works for all children. That is the bottom line. The policy is not about what teachers think; it is about which strategy the evidence demonstrates works with pupils. Pupils' reading standards are crucial.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |