| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Blizzard: Now that the hon. Gentleman has outlined a number of deficiencies, as he sees them, in our education system, would he care to say how many of them could have been put right by increasing income tax by 1p? Is he saying that his party would increase income tax by 1p to put right some of the things that he says are so wrong?
Mr. Foster: I began my speech by talking about old battles and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman wishes to return to one. We have made it clear that we would increase income tax to increase investment in education. The hon. Gentleman surely knows that it would not require increased investment to introduce targets for pupils at key stage 2. That is a matter not of investment but of educational common sense. It is a straightforward and positive suggestion.
Another issue that does not require increased investment is early-years provision. The Government rightly want diversity of provision to involve the private sector, the voluntary sector and the maintained sector. We very definitely welcome that move. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the way in which the system has been set up. As the hon. Member for Maidenhead rightly pointed out--let us not argue about the figures--there has
been a significant reduction in the number of pre-school playgroups available to participate in the partnership between the three sectors.
Solving a further problem, again without additional resources, could improve choice. The Secretary of State was perhaps somewhat unjustifiably proud of the new admissions code of practice. Some parents find themselves almost forced to put their child into a reception class to ensure that the child can get into year 1 of that primary school. When I first raised that problem with the Secretary of State, he promised to examine it. He subsequently came up with what he described as a solution. It was that a spare place could be kept in the reception class, thereby allowing the child to move in not from the reception class but from wherever else early-years provision had been made. However, that is not a realistic proposition because the tight funding regime under which schools currently operate means that no school will want to leave a place open if it will not receive funding for it. I ask the Secretary of State and the Government to look again at that choice.
In two other areas the Government could make a change of policy that would increase rather than reduce choice. The first relates to the way in which money is currently allocated. When the Government the other day accused many LEAs of holding money back at the centre and not passing it on to schools, they demonstrated a degree of hypocrisy. The Labour Government are increasing the amount of money that they are holding back at the centre and reducing the amount that they give to LEAs. The Government's own figures demonstrate that, in the first four years of a Labour Government, there will have been an increase in the Government's share of education spend from 38 to 42 per cent. and a corresponding 4 per cent. reduction in the amount that LEAs will have to spend. That is exactly what the Government accuse LEAs of doing. The Government are holding money back centrally and denying choice to the LEAs. That could be changed, as could the way in which the money that they hold back centrally is allocated.
As I am sure all hon. Members are aware, much of the money held back centrally is now allocated through a complex bureaucratic bidding system. Since the Government came to power, LEAs have made 25,000 separate bids for money. Only 9,000 have been successful. There is a one in three chance of being successful. Two thirds of the bids have required a huge amount of bureaucracy on the part of LEAs, yet some LEAs see nothing for it.
The distribution of the money is incredibly patchy. If one analyses where bids have been successful, one can find no logical pattern. They are not more successful in rural, urban, deprived or wealthy areas.
Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling):
What the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is a real problem. Does he accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in answer to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) that he would look at the problem? Everyone accepts that there is a problem in the bidding process.
Mr. Foster:
The Secretary of State made that remark, but the concerns have been drawn to his attention for a considerable time and we see no change in the procedure. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support in pointing out that the system has to be changed. I make my remarks as a positive contribution to the debate.
In some respects, the Government have got the provision of diversity almost but not quite right. We welcome the provision of specialist schools and beacon schools. However, we do not accept that there is a need for such schools to maintain the selective system that the Government promised to get rid of before they came to power. They are now going to continue it under the guise of selection by aptitude, yet not a single Minister has yet been able to explain the difference between selection by aptitude and selection by ability. We would far prefer specialist schools to be set up in an area and open to all pupils in that area. If it is a specialist music school, all pupils in the area--whether they are from a musical background or not--could benefit from that specialism. We do not need a selective system to run alongside the selective school approach.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam):
Does my hon. Friend accept that, for such schools to work, parents must be able to get their children into them, safe in the knowledge that they can fall back on the catchment schools? We still have a problem whereby if the catchment school is full with other first preferences, the kids are bumped off to a school that is perhaps many miles away.
Mr. Foster:
My hon. Friend is right. He will know that in Committee we constantly argued against both the Rotherham and Greenwich judgments--another area of denial of choice for local education authorities.
Liz Blackman (Erewash):
The bottom line in any debate on education is that parents must be in a position not to have to make a choice in terms of good-quality education for their children. Every parent wants that for their children, and it should be an expectation and a right. Clearly, that entitlement is not on offer universally, as the evidence shows. The Secretary of State referred to the shocking figures that we inherited in 1997, which showed that two out of five 11-year-olds were not reaching the expected standards of their age group. I was concerned, but not surprised, that that was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).
In government, the Conservatives expressed concern about the need to improve standards--I acknowledge that. However, their analysis of how to raise standards was to implement a crude, market-driven mechanism--the internal market. Much was made of the exercise of choice, and some parents applied to get their children into high-performing schools, as any parent would do. The money and resources went with them.
The corollary was that there was no choice for the many. The children and parents who remained in poorer schools did so often because money was not available to ensure that they could travel to the schools that, in their perception, were performing better. Sometimes they were slow off the blocks, and did not understand the system.
Sometimes the schools were full, and sometimes the children were turned down. The poorer schools were often left struggling with diminished rolls and diminished pupil funding, and they faced a multiplicity of other problems that were not necessarily all of their own making.
All of this took place against the backdrop of national underfunding, no national strategy to address poor national results and no recognition of the needs of particular communities, some of which were far more severe than others. Teacher morale was at an all-time low. Ofsted has, and had, a place. However, without the support that I have outlined, it was difficult to work effectively to improve performance. Without making education a clear priority, Ofsted was, in the past, the diagnosis, but not always the treatment.
Our clear objectives are to inspect, measure and demand, but also to support. We have set them out clearly. All sectors of education and lifelong learning have been and will be supported, and there has been recognition of our policies from Opposition Members.
The Government made a choice--in our early years--to support the early years and the infant sector, and rightly so. There is no more critical time than when children are young and at their most receptive. Early-years education in my constituency is purposeful, appropriate and thriving. All four-year-olds are guaranteed a place, and many three-year-olds have access to good-quality education.
As a teacher, I can tell the House that class size does matter, especially with little ones. There was no choice in Derbyshire when we tried to teach children in class sizes of more than 40 in many schools in my constituency. We would have welcomed a policy from the centre to supply resources and to reduce class sizes, which were truly appalling.
Erewash schools, and the children in them, have benefited enormously from reduced class sizes through the abolition of the assisted places scheme. Erewash has benefited from money for new classrooms, and for the additional teachers who were essential to accommodate those reduced class sizes, as promised. That money has been forthcoming.
Schools have been maintained and improved, and the worst are beginning to be replaced. The £5.4 billion of new deal money is beginning to help. A pleasant environment without leaking roofs and with decent classrooms is not an add-on--it is an absolutely essential part of teaching children.
We targeted areas of special need where terrible social and economic problems abound, and we proposed partnerships. The sure start programme reaches out and embraces children and their families, to support them and to create a positive attitude to learning, right from the start. Education action zones lever in not only more resources, but innovative approaches to drive up standards.
I wish to refer to the literacy hour--the most innovative of all our policies. It has been planned and supported, and the resources have been put in place. It is producing stunning results. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that teachers work incredibly hard and put in a lot of extra time. However, any new change as revolutionary as the literacy hour demands extra time. It demands commitment, but the results are so positive that teachers consider the effort worth while. They see that all
the planning and preparation will pay off in the long run. The sheer hard work and grind will ease, as the programme continues to evolve.
The training and resources for numeracy hour that are coming on-stream in my constituency are extremely encouraging, as has been acknowledged. The preparations are going well and in many schools in Erewash, it is being tried out, with positive results.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |