| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10 Apr 2003 : Column 391—continued
Truancy
5. Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): How many initiatives the DFES and its predecessor Department have announced since 1997 to tackle truancy. [108245]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): Since 1997 we have been working to support local education authorities with a range of measures to tackle truancy and improve school attendance. In the last year we have introduced electronic registration systems into more schools, we have co-ordinated national truancy sweeps, and we have funded behaviour improvement programmes in areas with high levels of truancy. Over the next three years, we will implement our national behaviour and attendance strategy to support schools in improving behaviour and attendance and tackling truancy.
Mr. Wiggin : What I actually asked was how many schemes the Government had announced. Perhaps the Minister was not there on the day when the answer was given to him, but the truth about the latest Government scheme, involving bringing parents before a magistrate, is that only four out of 10 parents turned up. The local council's principal officer for inclusion said
- "It's obviously been a failure . . . The scheme clearly needs rethinking."
Mr. Lewis: I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that truancy is a problem that we need to tackle, and an issue on which there ought to be national consensus. Every day 50,000 children truant, and 7.5 million school days are lost every year. Truancy leads directly to educational underperformance and street crime. What the Government are doing, for the first time, is establishing a combination of positive support and early intervention to prevent truancy and nip it in the bud when it begins. We are also ensuring that sanctions and other consequences result when parents do not fulfil their responsibility to get their children to school.
More adults than ever before are supporting teachers. We are reforming the educational welfare service. We have nationally co-ordinated truancy sweeps. We are reforming the curriculum—and yes, we are holding parents to account for the first time when they actively condone truancy. We believe that there must be a combination of support, prevention and accountability.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): My hon. Friend will be aware that truancy is often related to social difficulties in areas of deprivation, and to family breakdown and the like. This puts enormous pressure on the head teachers of very large schools in such areas, in which there is a high proportion of people with social
difficulties. Will my hon. Friend consider recommending the appointment of, and the provision of the necessary resources to support, specialist social workers in such schools to take that pressure off of head teachers and teachers?
Mr. Lewis: There have never been more adults in our schools supporting teachers in their front-line classroom duties. Classroom assistants, learning mentors and Connexions personal advisers are there to make links to provide intensive support to individual young people, particularly those who are the most challenging within the school community. They also make links between what is happening in school and what is happening at home, and central to that is the role of Connexions, which addresses any barrier that is preventing young people from progressing within the education system, be it the curriculum, the relationship with the school, the situation at home, or the relationship with peers. There have never been more adults working as part of the school work force to focus on the needs of all children, but especially of those who are the most challenging to the education system.
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): Will the Minister acknowledge that court action, fixed-penalty notices, parental contracts and the like are not a great deal of help with the permanent truants, who are completely out of the control of their own parents? What estimate has he made of this hard-core group, and what specific initiatives does he have for them?
Mr. Lewis: Such observations are fairly typical of the Liberal Democrats, based as they are on the principle of all rights and no responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman will recall the recent high-profile case of Mrs. Amos, who was sent to prison as a last resort because she had consistently failed to send her children to school. However, she is now the greatest advocate of our policy. She says quite openly that she sends her children to school regularly, and her family are receiving intensive levels of support. There is no doubt that, as a last resort, fines and imprisonment lead to the triggering of action that is so important in terms of finally dealing with the underlying problems that result in such children not attending school.
Pupil Performance (Kent)
7. Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet): What comparison he has made of pupil performance at key stage 2 in Kent with performance among (a) comparator authorities and (b) English authorities generally. [108248]
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): In 2002, Kent's key stage 2 results in English, maths and science were just below the national average, and were below those of similar authorities.
Dr. Ladyman : Is that not pretty awful? Of course, it has come about because teachers, instead of doing what they want to do in the final year of key stage 2, have to coach the 11-plus. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been reported this week in Kent newspapers as saying that he has no plans to scrap selection. Given
that, as we now know, we get worse results at A-level than do non-selective areas, worse results at GCSE than do non-selective areas, a higher proportion of failing secondary schools than do non-selective areas, and, now, worse results at key stage 2 than do non-selective areas, is it not about time that we made some plans to scrap selection?
Mr. Miliband: The Government do not support extension of the 11-plus, as my hon. Friend knows. However, in the end it must be for local people to make decisions about the future of school organisation in their areas. The issue must be the standards to which he refers, and I commend him for the work that he is doing to ensure that the debate is about standards and not about ideology.
Public Service Agreement Targets
8. Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): If he will make a statement on progress in meeting his public service agreement targets in relation to (a) literacy, (b) numeracy and (c) truancy in schools. [108249]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The standards of literacy and numeracy in our primary schools are at their highest levels ever. We are committed to taking extensive action to raise standards further, and to reduce truancy to achieve the challenging targets that we have set.
Mr. Bercow : I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his reply. Given that the trumpeted public service agreement targets on literacy and numeracy were missed in 2002, and that the target on truancy was missed and then scrapped, why cannot the hon. Gentleman see that for the Government to fail to meet targets set by independent experts would be disappointing, but to fail to meet targets that they themselves have set requires incompetence on a truly spectacular scale?
Mr. Twigg: I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should make those remarks in a week when the international reading literacy study has demonstrated that the standards achieved by 10-year-olds in this country are the third best of any country in the advanced industrialised world. That is a great tribute to the success of the national literacy strategy.
We have set very ambitions targets. Since 1997, the numbers of 11-year-olds achieving the expected level in English have risen from 63 per cent. to 75 per cent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to join me in praising that great achievement. Yes, we did not hit the target, but we are not lowering it. We have an ambitious target of 85 per cent. of pupils achieving the expected levels in both English and maths from next year, and we aim to sustain that target through 2005 and 2006. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will support us in seeking to ensure that the vast majority of 11-year-olds reach the expected levels in English and maths.
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester): The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned primary schools quite specifically. That theme is consistent with what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone
and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Chancellor, has said. In his piece in The Guardian earlier this week, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that 25 per cent. of primary school children could not read, write or count. How does my hon. Friend feel that that compares with the 1997 figure, when 40 per cent. of primary school children were unable to reach level 4?
Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend is right. The 1997 figures show that 63 per cent. of pupils achieved that level in English, and 62 per cent. in maths. There has been a very substantial improvement. The national literacy and numeracy strategy and the hard work of teachers in our primary schools have ensured that that improvement has come about.
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton): Is not the most common cause of truancy the fact that a pupil cannot keep up with classmates? Does the Minister agree that setting helps to raise standards and reduce truancy? Is not it therefore a cause for concern that the overwhelming majority of lessons in our secondary schools are mixed ability?
Mr. Twigg: The causes of truancy are complex and varied. Different practices are adopted in different schools and areas to tackle that. The evidence on setting is mixed. There is evidence of successful setting in certain subjects at certain stages, and other evidence that shows successful mixed-ability practice. What is important is that we enable head teachers to study the evidence that is available and to make the best decision on setting and mixed ability for the children in their schools.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |