| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Blunkett: I will if the hon. Gentleman gives me a chance.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I appeal to the House? It is not helpful if we have sedentary comments from the Secretary of State and then hesitation or, indeed, repetition from the hon. Gentleman.
4.45 pm
Mr. Brady: It is not I who seeks to be repetitive in these matters, but the Secretary of State, who insists on revisiting these areas of policy. One day he says that there will be no further selection by interview or examination; the next he is happy to propose new amendments to the Bill which would introduce further selection. It is not I, but the Secretary of State who is inconsistent in these matters.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): Amendment No. 84 refers to children
- who have attained the age of 11.
Mr. Brady: I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, coming from Northern Ireland, which has excellent educational results and a very fine selective system of education, he has good reason to understand what he is talking about.
I do not seek a closed and narrow interpretation of how schools may select according to aptitude or ability, which may be one and the same thing; I seek an open and inclusive approach which would allow all schools some flexibility in respect of selecting from applicants, the means of selection and the age of selection.
The Secretary of State seems to be on the verge of a breakthrough. He seems to be overcoming the obstacle of the out-of-date ideological obsession that Labour Members have had with the idea of selection. He has now reached the point of understanding that selection can work and that in some circumstances, it can raise standards. He has set out some of those circumstances in the Bill. I am urging him on in that breakthrough to go a little further and to understand the opportunities that he is beginning to offer our educational system. If he is open minded and accepts some of the principles in the amendment, we will make progress a little faster towards the end which he and I apparently share.
Mr. Hilary Benn (Leeds, Central): I assure the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that Labour Members do not have an ideological obsession with selection; we have a practical objection, but that is a matter for the next group of amendments and I shall not be tempted to dwell on it now.
It is fair to say that we had a lively exchange in Standing Committee about city academies, and that all hon. Members share my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's interest in inner-city education. Like him, I represent an inner-city area where raising standards is absolutely central to the opportunities and chances of the young people whom I represent.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns that have been raised, in particular on the part of schools that think that they might be considered for city academy status, but whose results are affected by the fact that they take in large numbers of refugee children. That applies particularly to one school in the area that I represent. I am grateful for the consideration that Ministers are giving to that very difficult and important question.
I want to address two of the amendments in the group. The first relates to the need for proper consultation with local education authorities on the establishment of city academies. There is no question whatever about the fact that the proposal will work only if it is a partnership. It would be the worst course of action where local education authorities and local communities were bitterly opposed to innovation in the interest of raising standards. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the amendment that relates to the need to ensure that there is proper and effective consultation with local education authorities.
The second issue that I want to address is the subject of amendment No. 75. In Standing Committee there was considerable discussion about the way in which city academies will operate. Ministers said repeatedly that city academies would be expected to abide by various requirements that also apply to maintained schools of whatever character. In particular, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), said:
- It is important to stress that the academies will have admission policies consistent with the codes of practice on admissions.--[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 June 2000; c. 747.]
- admissions criteria must be clear, objective and fair . . . admissions arrangements should be circulated for comment to other admission authorities . . . City academies should participate in the local admissions forum and establish independent appeals panels.
Mr. Benn: I hope that that is not the case, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will address that issue when he responds to the debate. If the
city academies are to abide by the full spirit of the code of practice on admissions, all the requirements and obligations that come with it should apply.One of those obligations, which was not dealt with at length in Committee, is the role of the adjudicator. The purpose of amendment No. 75 is to extend that principle to the functions and duties of the adjudicator as they relate to admissions to city academies. It is not my purpose to discuss at length the role that the adjudicator plays, because--according to Hansard--that was debated at considerable length into the early hours of the morning when the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was considered. The arguments in favour of the adjudicator system are just as strong today.
Parents, local authorities and other schools are entitled to be reassured that if a city academy is established in their area--Ministers have confirmed that it will operate according to the law on admissions and the code of practice--they will have the same rights to refer issues to the adjudicator, whose word will be final in the matters over which Parliament has given him control. In other words, city academies will be no different from other schools when it comes to admissions.
The adjudicator has a particular responsibility to deal with objections referred to him that relate to admission arrangements, including those relating to partial selection, or cases in which selection by aptitude--to which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West referred--is in fact selection by ability. On that issue, right hon. and hon. Members will have been interested to note that of the 500 or so specialist schools that can select up to 10 per cent. of pupils by aptitude, only about 7 per cent. actually use that power. I have some sympathy with that, because I can see difficulties in interpreting aptitude. Assessing the interest of pupils in the subject might be a better method. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend, in replying, could assure the House that no aspect of the establishment of city academies will require governing bodies to use the ability to select up to 10 per cent. by aptitude if they choose not to do so. They might choose to follow the pattern of specialist schools elsewhere.
The adjudicator post exists to provide reassurance that admissions arrangements are fair and within the law. The functions were introduced for good reason, and currently apply to maintained schools. I can see no reason why they should not apply to city academies, too.
Mr. Willis: It is sad that we spent 20 minutes on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) which deal with the narrow issue of selection. This is a major Bill, and city academies are one of the most important initiatives of the Government's three years in office. The impact of the Bill on the state education system could be profound. I say that not as a criticism, but as a statement of fact.
There is an argument--as the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said--that if this form of educational organisation is good enough for children in inner-city schools, why is it not good enough for children elsewhere? The Secretary of State must answer that important question. We must not have another tier of organisation that applies to children in so-called failing schools.
The amendments on city academies were tabled at a late stage in Committee. There were full apologies from the Government for that, and we do not wish to reopen
that issue. However, in Committee I asked for the Government's definition of a failing school, as that is important. We need to know whether it means a lack of students getting five grades A to C for three years--the Secretary of State's original definition--or truancy rates, or other criteria that often affect inner-city schools in particular. In order to have a policy that will apply to groups of failing schools, we must have a definition of a failing school. Perhaps the Secretary of State will give us that definition when he responds to the debate.I refute the idea that is often peddled by the Tory party--and, sadly, by large numbers within the Labour party--that we have a failing state education system. I do not believe that that is the case. Yesterday, in Islington, Tim Brighouse made it clear that all politicians--particularly Members of this House--should be careful about damning our schools, teachers and children simply because they do not meet the norms in some criteria set by the Department for Education and Employment or anyone else. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards would support some, if not all, of those comments.
I hope that the Secretary of State will reject amendments Nos. 79, 84, 85 and 86, which are an attempt by the Opposition to bring in selection by the back door. Amendment No. 85 would allow schools to select on the basis of maths and English testing. That is what the 11-plus was about. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West is passionate about selection and I admire his tenacity. However, he ought to be honest enough to say that it is Tory party policy to seek to reintroduce the 11-plus at the age of 11--as that is what the amendments say--not for a few children but for all children, and that the Tories want to base their education policy on that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |