| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.11 pm
Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): Education is rightly put at the heart of the political debate. It affects everything, from the nation's competitiveness, skills and employment to the social conditions of our society. I cannot put it better than the headmistress of Parkstone grammar school in my constituency, in a recent letter:
- "Education is the single most effective route out of poverty."
In my election pledge, I stated that
The 1997 Labour manifesto stated:
The question is not balanced, as in some schools parents will not be able to vote, yet parents with children at feeder schools, who may not want to send their children to the grammar school, will have the final say on the future of other people's children. The proposals will alter who has a say on the issue, and are thus unfair: after all, if one asks a loaded question, one tends to get a loaded answer.
Above all, this country needs choice in education. The right to decide is imperative for a parent. Every child is different and parents know best what is right for their child. Not all children are academic, and vocational skills must be taken into consideration. Taking away choice and diversity limits the opportunities that will best suit the child.
The whole community should decide the fate of a school. A constituent wrote to me recently:
If a school's status or the choice available to parents is changed, repercussions will inevitably be felt in an area's whole education system and in the pattern and structure of admission numbers. However, the cost of the exercise could easily render it a wasted effort when it comes to raising pupil achievement.
Mr. Alex Clark, the headmaster of Poole grammar school, told me:
I turn now to the Liberal Democrats in my constituency. Unfortunately, they run Poole council for the time being. However, East Dorset and Purbeck councils have been Tory since May, so there at least we can express an opinion about education. Sadly, the Liberal Democrats still run Dorset county council. If they remain in power, they will have the choice to pursue their agenda, but parents will not have a choice.
The Liberal Democrats have made what they think about grammar schools clear. During proceedings on the School Standards and Framework Bill, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said:
Mr. Don Foster:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fraser:
No, as I promised to keep my remarks brief.
I am afraid that my constituents whose children attend those grammar schools will be sorely misrepresented by the present council.
Regulations stifle diversity. The increase in bureaucracy has involved 322 new directives in the two years since the Labour Government took office. The fine words about cutting red tape and raising standards have evaporated into a thick fog of regulation that has had an adverse impact on schools.
I visit a lot of schools in my constituency, and have got to know the head teachers. They have made it clear that increased bureaucracy could seriously damage children's education, rather than improve it. Head teachers repeatedly tell me of the frustration they feel. The ever increasing amount of regulation and change comes at the expense of work at the chalk face. After two years of the Government's management of the education system, teachers have come to realise that the real agenda is to control the country's 25,000 schools directly from Whitehall, and to stifle all local initiative.
Another constituent wrote to me last week, as follows:
Schools in the new unitary authority of Poole must also deal with reassessing their needs and sorting out what happened under the old local education authority. The relationship with the LEA has naturally overlapped with what is being undertaken now.
The process has not been easy. Schools must now deal with the Government's new fair funding system, but they are coping. However, Dorset has lots of rural areas, and schools in the rural part of my constituency are not being treated so well. Mr. Stuart Clarke, a head teacher there, has written to me on the subject. He is the head not of a grammar school, but of a comprehensive school--Lytchett Minster upper school. He voiced his concerns when he told me that
Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling):
At its heart, the Conservative motion supports not a diverse but a divisive education system, the aim of which is to increase selection, to protect GM schools and to make the post-16 debate into a campaign to save sixth forms--a choice for a few, but not the many. That may be the real world in a small part of the country, but that agenda bears no relationship to the country as a whole--a country which, under the previous Government, saw unbridled competition leading to sink schools, large classes, schools in disrepair and poor standards. As many hon. Members have said, there were appalling levels of numeracy and literacy, which effectively debarred any child from achieving anything. There were real-term cuts in school funding.
The new Labour Government have set about modernising the education system, based on the comprehensive principle and social inclusion. That will mean real choice and diversity. We have new money for books and buildings, numeracy and literacy strategies, class size initiatives, increases in the standards fund, and money to improve pay for teachers.
May I tell the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Minister for School Standards why I am proud of the new Labour Government? We want excellence, academic success and achievement, but we want it for every child. That is why so much of what the Government are doing in education links with their other social policies. If we want to tackle under-achievement across the board, we will have to tackle the problems of social exclusion and social failure and the context in which schools operate and work.
That is why sure start is so important, starting when children are at an early age alongside nursery education. That is why the new deal for communities and excellence in cities, education action zones, health action zones and
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are so important. All those things will be crucial if we want to tackle the under-achievement that is endemic in half our schools.
The new educational maintenance allowance is crucial, but if we could extend it to all pupils, it would help more to go into further education. Relaxation of the key stage 4 curriculum is important, too. It gives the vocational element to 14 and 16-year-olds where they become particularly disaffected. They have something more tangible to be at school for. The post-16 White Paper, protecting sixth forms but looking to extend and to expand opportunity for all, is another important move. That is real choice, real diversity, a celebration of success, while meeting head on the challenge in the most difficult areas.
I go on to a pet theme of mine. If we really want to do something to improve achievement in our secondary schools, we will have to look at the curriculum in terms of 14 to 19. We will have to get some of our people to stay on at 16 if we hope to get them into higher education.
The Tories seem to want to protect only the privilege of a few, but we seek to extend opportunity for the many. So much will depend on the joined-up nature of all that.
On teachers, of course, the contract needs modernising. I say to many of my friends in the teaching profession: for years, the cry was that a teacher could get promoted only out of the classroom--they had to take a management responsibility to get promoted. Under the new contract, they can get promoted for being a good teacher and then stay in the classroom. That will do much to improve standards. Alongside that, it is important that we do not set a quota on the number of teachers who can cross the threshold. If they are good enough, they should be paid and allowed to pass through.
One legitimate concern, which I know the Minister shares, is the work load. We need to take account of the fact that teachers are telling us that they are finding it difficult. If we can continue our efforts to find ways to reduce bureaucracy, it would be helpful. We need to keep talking and negotiating to achieve a just outcome. I met some head teachers in Nottinghamshire on Friday. The work load was the issue to which they drew my attention--it was more important to them than pay and many of the other issues that are often raised.
This Government will go down in history as one of the truly radical Governments--a Government who have sought to deal with the social context in which schools operate, as well as the operation of schools themselves. If we want to raise achievement, it is essential that we realise that schools cannot continue to operate as social hospitals, with teachers being asked to deal with almost every social problem that can arise. Of course, teachers and schools have a responsibility and duty to do something about the problems that come to them, but schools need the support of the community around them. They need the other policies that we have mentioned if they are to achieve their goal of raising standards.
"we owe it to our younger generation to give them the best start in life to succeed in a competitive world.
Two and a half years later, I stand by those words; but can the Government claim to have stuck to their words and pledged intentions?
There must be choice and opportunity for all abilities so that we can all be members of a skilled and prosperous workforce, embracing the technological revolution."
"Labour will never force the abolition of good schools whether in the private sector or the state sector".
I believe that the Government's plans for grammar schools renege on that pledge. The plan to allow the fate of grammar schools to be decided through a ballot of parents from feeder schools is a centralist plan imposed on a local community.
"Why do we need a ballot, (surely a good school will thrive and a bad school will wither.) If there are 5 people chasing every place at a grammar school--the choice has been made, the school should be kept."
We also have excellent non-selective or grant- maintained schools in my constituency which produce superb results and are equally popular, and which have equal standing in the eyes of the community and of parents, who have a valid role to play in the diversity and choice in the education that they have chosen for their children.
"If the Government genuinely believes in the overriding priority to address standards and not structure, why does it not at least postpone the issue of grammar school ballots by three or four years? This will allow the maximum effort to meet the required standards by 2002. In that time they may . . . come to realise the very important dimension to education provided by grammar schools."
7 Jul 1999 : Column 1128
The irony is that certain members of the Labour party have, in the past, exercised choice for their own children. There is nothing wrong with that, but the drawbridge is being pulled up after them to prevent other parents having the same choices and opportunities.
"We make it clear that we are opposed to grammar schools and selection, partial or otherwise."--[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1998; c. 616.]
The Liberal Democrats say that they are opposed to ballots as well, so what will people in my constituency do when the time comes for the two grammar schools to be subject to a local ballot, as will happen? The position of parents will not be represented fairly. Given that the Liberal Democrats on the council are not in favour of a ballot and they do not agree with selection in schools, the parents will be on a hiding to nothing.
"Although the Government has repeated the mantra of 'standards not structures', the barrage of initiatives which has been launched this year by the Government seems to have left the central theme of pupil achievement by the wayside."
In my speech, I have used real quotations from constituents. They are concerned about education: it is their children who must use the schools in my area. I want the Government to tackle the genuine anxieties that they have expressed. The Government have dismantled the framework and management of grant-maintained schools, and the preoccupation with staffing and financing that has been unleashed is very often to the detriment of children.
"rural schools such as mine which attract neither urban nor rural priority . . . are located in an authority which delegates funds at a lower rate than most other authorities."
He said that such schools
"find themselves in a funding vacuum that prevents them from forging ahead with new initiatives. The Government is also determined to ignore them."
In Dorset and the borough of Poole, we have a problem with lack of funding; it is an issue. Despite that, the range of schools in my constituency do well, as they are well-managed and offer not only excellent academic standards but a true choice that reflects the diversity of the community that they serve. I would like that to continue.
9.20 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |