House of Commons
Thursday 29 April 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--
General Teaching Council
1. Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling): When the General Teaching Council will be operational; and if he will make a statement on its introduction. [81514]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): From September 2000, the General Teaching Council for England will be the new professional body for teachers. For the first time, teachers will have a real role in regulating their profession, and we expect that the GTC will quickly become a key player in shaping the education service of the future. The Government are committed to revitalising teaching as a leading profession, and the GTC is a powerful symbol of our drive towards achieving that. The first election to the GTC is expected to take place in spring 2000.
Mr. Coaker: Is my hon. Friend aware of quite how much teachers welcome the establishment of the General Teaching Council? They have long wanted a professional body that is able to represent their interests and articulate their views on a wide range of education issues. Will he confirm that part of the Government's drive towards addressing education issues is to re-establish the teaching profession's morale, which is so essential if we are to raise education standards in our schools?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: the reform is long overdue and should have been made decades ago. It is also a very important step in establishing and strengthening the status and standing of the teaching profession in the community as a whole, and in ensuring that professional standards run right through our education system. I am absolutely delighted that this Government have put the reform on the statute book and will bring it into effect. It will have a profound effect on classroom morale.
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead): The Minister is well aware of our concerns about the General Teaching Council, and the fact that it is not the body that it needs to be if it is to encourage more people to join the teaching
profession. We are also concerned about the extreme control that the Secretary of State has over members of the General Teaching Council--is not that yet another example of the way in which the Government seek to control from the centre, rather than allowing teachers and the profession to make decisions for themselves?
Given the recently released figures showing that the Government will yet again miss the teacher recruitment target--which the Government reduced, despite the fact that there are still 10,000 teacher vacancies in our schools--when will they accept the real classroom crisis of teaching recruitment and do something about it?
Mr. Clarke:
It is a little rich for the hon. Lady to make that point, given that for 18 years the previous Government did absolutely nothing to address those issues. Although I am glad that she has given her general support, her remarks were a bit rich.
I defend the role of the Secretary of State in nominating members to the General Teaching Council on two important grounds. First, there is a public interest in regulation of the teaching profession. It is right that there should be such an interest, and it should be expressed by the Secretary of State in nominating people to the council. Secondly, the Secretary of State's nominations will give real flexibility to the council as it begins to evolve. In the regulations, we specify the Secretary of State's specific responsibility to take account of the needs of parents and of children with special educational needs. I believe that those are very important developments in ensuring that the General Teaching Council will evolve into what we wish it to be--an effective, strong and independent representative of the profession.
The Green Paper, the GTC initiative and all our other specific initiatives and measures--on science and on maths, for example--are designed to tackle teacher recruitment. It would be very refreshing if the hon. Lady gave us some support in those initiatives, rather than simply seeking to niggle from the sidelines, as she so consistently does.
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside):
Does my hon. Friend agree that until the profession unites into a council, it will never achieve its full potential? Will he say that he intends urgently to press on and attempt to knock some sense into the profession?
Mr. Clarke:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have said on a number of occasions, and I believe it to be the case, that the divided representation of the teaching trade unions damages the profession. I hope that the General Teaching Council will play a role in unifying and strengthening the profession's role in the provision of education, which is why I think that establishing the council is such an important step. I am glad to have his support.
2. Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
If he will make a statement about the inclusion of information about (a) average class sizes and (b) money spent per pupil in
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett):
I have been trying to work out from which wing of the Conservative party this question comes.
We currently have no plans to increase further the amount of statistical data and information published in performance tables. However, I should--under pressure, of course, from the hon. Gentleman--be prepared to publish details of the pupil-teacher ratios and the rise in the number of children being taught in classes of over 30 pupils in the last 10 years of the previous Government.
Dr. Lewis:
May I reassure the Secretary of State that, like all my questions, this one comes from the mainstream of the Conservative party? Does he accept that there are three main probable causes of the inadequacy of primary school pupils turned out into secondary education--first, the inadequate sums being spent; secondly, there are too many children per class; and, thirdly, rotten teaching methods? Does he accept that, until we publish data on class sizes and amounts spent per pupil, it will be impossible to tell whether the first two causes are behind inadequate results at the primary level, or whether the cause is really, as I suspect, rotten teaching methods?
Mr. Blunkett:
From that, I deduce that the question came from the absolute denial wing of the Conservative party. Yes, there was an £80 per pupil drop in spending under the Conservatives. Yes, there will be a £235 per pupil increase under this Government in their first term in office. Yes, there was a continuing worsening of the pupil-teacher ratio; yes, we have already reversed that, and, for the first time in 10 years, primary pupil-teacher ratios have improved. We have managed to get 130,000 infant children into classes of fewer than 30 in the first year that we embarked on the attempt. Yes, of course, rotten teaching methods make a difference--which is why we are always glad to receive the odd moment of support from the Conservative party for the literacy and numeracy strategies that they did not introduce.
Mr. David Willetts (Havant):
What does the Secretary of State say to the school that I visited last week, which because of the rigid implementation of the class size policy is having to turn away pupils whose parents want them educated there? Because funding is allocated per capita, the school is losing money too, and because it is losing money it will have to lose teaching assistants, so there will be fewer adults per class. Everybody is losing because of the rigid implementation of the policy. Many schools throughout the country are trapped in that way. What does the Secretary of State say to them?
Mr. Blunkett:
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman visit schools among the majority that have discovered that with the investment that we have made already in the reduction of class sizes, there are 2,700 extra teachers and 600 extra classrooms. That has allowed us to accommodate a further 12,000 parental preferences for schools under admissions pressure such as the one that he has described. In other words, we are reducing the number of children in classes of more than 30 at the same time as we are expanding
3. Mr. Ian Cawsey (Brigg and Goole):
If he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to improve standards of achievement in further and higher education. [81517]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie):
The Government have shown by word and deed their determination to improve standards of achievement in both further and higher education. In further education, we established a standards fund of £35 million this year, and £80 million next year. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education is developing new methods of ensuring rigorous and comparable standards in higher education.
Mr. Cawsey:
I wish my hon. Friend well in his endeavours, and I am looking forward to his visit to my constituency tomorrow. Does he accept that the need to drive up standards in the post-16 sector should be met by adequate and fair funding? Is he aware that studies by the National Audit Office and others have shown that, in my area, for instance, John Leggott sixth form college, which enjoys a national reputation for the standards achieved by its comprehensive intake, has funding 30 per cent. lower than the sixth form of the Queen Elizabeth school in Gainsborough, which is a selective grammar school? Will he use his good offices to look into the figures and ensure that all schools in the post-16 sector get fair allocation of resources, to achieve the higher standards that he wants to put in place?
Mr. Mudie:
I am indeed looking forward to my visit to sunny Scunny, as we call it in Yorkshire. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating John Leggott sixth form college, which has a deserved national reputation for its excellence. His remarks must be set against the November settlement announced by the Secretary of State, which put an additional £725 million into the further education sector. None the less, I am aware, as is the rest of the House, of the specific point that he made. We recognise that the system that we inherited from the previous Government has its inequalities, and that is one matter that may fall to be dealt with under the post-16 review.
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough):
It is the first time I have heard Scunthorpe described as sunny Scunny, but I will take the Minister's word for it. The Liberal Democrats support the Government's attempts to drive up standards in further and higher education, but does the Minister accept that it is also important to meet the access targets? Does he also accept that the disastrous introduction of tuition fees has meant a decline in the number of applicants to higher education, including a 28 per cent. decrease in the number of mature applicants? Is it not time for the Government to abandon the Prime Minister's target of 500,000 extra students by the end of this Parliament?
Mr. Mudie:
I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. I shall give the House some interesting figures. In 1994, the number of applications
Mr. Malcolm Wicks (Croydon, North):
Given that the public standing of universities, and consequent league tables, tend to be based on research excellence and research funding--I do not wish to argue with that important focus--does my hon. Friend feel that the universities are striking the right balance between research reputation and high-quality teaching? Does he agree that we need to do far more to drive up teaching standards in our universities, in an age when more of our young people are going to university from a variety of backgrounds and tuition fees have to be paid?
Mr. Mudie:
As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have put an additional £1.4 billion into research, but we are aware of the need to keep a balance. As my original answer accepts, we are always keen to improve standards and we are aware of the need to work with the higher education sector to keep improving teaching standards.
Mr. Damian Green (Ashford):
I am delighted to hear that the Minister will visit John Leggott college, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) that when I was last in Scunthorpe visiting the college it poured with rain, so the town may not live up to the Minister's advertisement for it.
In the context of the post-16 review, the Minister mentioned the great concern about the inequality of funding between different types of sixth form institution. Can he give a guarantee to school sixth forms that none of them will be closed as a result of the post-16 review against the wishes of local parents, teachers and education authorities?
Mr. Mudie:
I shall certainly give that guarantee unequivocally. Sixth forms have an important part to play, alongside further education colleges and sixth form colleges. Anything in the post-16 review that did not build on sixth forms or, especially in the inner cities, failed to strengthen, improve and expand them would be strongly opposed by the Government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |