| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby): Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how the schools in his constituency are tackling the problem of falling rolls? Are the losses, either in the shorter or longer term, associated with falling rolls in any of the schools that he mentioned?
Andrew Selous: No, Bedfordshire is an area of great population growth. Currently the population of our towns and country areas is growing, though none of the schools that I mentioned is in a rural area. It is not an area of population decline. That may be the hon. Lady's experience, but it does not apply to Bedfordshire.
The spectacle that we witnessed earlier this year—of the Government trying to blame everyone other than themselves—was not attractive. Local education authorities were first singled out for blame, but when the figures were examined, it was found that few had behaved improperly. My own authority of Bedfordshire was proved to have passed on all the money that it should have done—and, indeed, more.
I am extremely concerned about the governors and head teachers who have to set school budgets at the start of every year. In common with many other hon. Members, I would like to see an increase in the core mainstream funding of schools from around the present 70 per cent. to a much higher figure of perhaps 80, 85 or even 90 per cent; and a reduction in the 30 per cent. that schools have either to bid for or are allocated later in the year. There a number of very good reasons why we should do that.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
- That, at this day's sitting, proceedings on the Motions in the name of the Leader of the Opposition may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eight o'clock.—[Mr. Kemp.]
Andrew Selous: It is incredibly difficult to set a school budget if one is not clear about exactly what moneys will be allocated at the start of the year. The person who sets a school budget will probably be the chair of the finance committee. That person will be a school governor with a full-time job and a family, who probably undertakes other activities in the community as well. It is extremely difficult for such people to plan properly in respect of staff and major capital programmes if they are not sure what money they will get during the year.
I take the point made earlier by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) that some money does have to be retained at the centre, for special needs. He gave the interesting example of New Zealand, where they got rid of LEAs and then had to reinstate them. If that fact was unearthed by the Select Committee, it shows the value of those Committees looking at what is happening around the world. I therefore do not advocate the abolition of LEAs, but I believe that the balance between direct funding to schools and the money retained by either central Government or the LEA is wrong. I should like to increase the 70 per cent. figure by a large amount.
Mention has been made in the debate of new teachers coming into the profession. I acknowledge that the figures are healthy, and show that more people are going into teacher training college than was the case last year. I suspect that that is partly the result of the golden hellos that have been introduced, which will go some way towards paying off student loans. That is all well and good, and the measure was a sensible one for the Government to take.
However, I am very worried about retention in the teaching profession. It is a real issue. All hon. Members know that, in any great public profession—such as teaching, medicine or the police—there are huge advantages to be gained from continuity and experience. Teachers who have been in the profession for many years will have coped with many difficult situations, and they therefore bring great wisdom and depth of experience to the job. It is extremely worrying that so many teachers leave the profession after only three or four years.
I was very interested in the research mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) into the reasons why teachers are leaving the profession. About six months ago, I went into an upper school in my constituency as part of a citizenship education programme. The day's activity went extremely well, but I found myself in sole charge of a class. I do not think that it was supposed to happen: the children were about 15 or 16 years of age and quite lively. The class was fairly large, and I found getting the children's attention and saying what I wanted to say quite exhausting. The exercise had to do with setting a local authority budget, and I wanted to look at the children's priorities for the community. That was not something that they had considered before, but I hasten to say that it was the school's idea, not mine. It was a very good exercise, and I was trying to get them to think about the different needs of the community.
Mr. Bailey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the exercise would have been considerably more difficult if it had been held eight years ago?
Andrew Selous: I might say that that makes it 15-all, but the intervention was not relevant to my point.
I found it personally draining to have to keep the pupils' attention, to keep order and to stop conversations going on at the back of the class as I got pupils to focus on what we were trying to do. I did that three or four times in a couple of different classes one morning. As I left, I said that that was indeed fairly draining work which gave me a good insight into the problems that teachers have day in and day out. I understand from the survey undertaken by the General Teaching Council in January that the main reasons why teachers leave the profession are badly behaved pupils and the constant struggle of having to keep discipline when they want to impart knowledge and teach their subjects. How much that saps morale is difficult to know for anyone who has not done it.
That is why I will see the Secretary of State at 11 am tomorrow to raise the issue of antisocial behaviour and parenting in relation to schools. I am going with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) who shares my concerns. It is no surprise that we are joining together to do that—Members on both sides of the House are concerned. It is time that we came together across the country to agree that the situation is intolerable. The problem was highlighted recently by the chief inspector of schools, David Bell, for whom I have great respect, and whom I know reasonably well because he is a former chief executive of Bedfordshire county council and I have travelled to London with him by train from time to time. He made some interesting comments two or three weeks ago about the extreme difficulties that primary and lower schools have when children arrive lacking any sort of the social skills that would have been taken for granted 10, 15 or 20 years ago.
Jonathan Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his comments about the chief inspector endorse the work of the sure start programme in the most deprived areas? He has said time and again that he welcomes extra money for teacher recruitment and various initiatives, but when it comes down to it, he votes against that money.
Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman keeps resorting to relatively cheap attacks. I was trying to engage in discussion about a matter that I think is of important cross-party interest. There is a national problem, whether we are Labour, Liberal, Conservative or anything else. That is why I am joining a Labour Member tomorrow in seeing the Secretary of State.
We can argue about the mechanisms by which we deal with the problem. Sure start will have its advocates but since that initiative does not apply to my area—even though we have extreme pockets of deprivation—I cannot speak of it from first-hand experience. I can say that the work done by home start, which is to be expanded and of which there are examples in my constituency, is excellent. I myself would try to empower parents more, perhaps helping those who have not had the benefit of being well parented themselves to improve the way in which they parent their own children. There are different ways to approach the problem, but I am convinced that we must recognise that there is a national problem. We cannot expect teachers in lower and primary schools to do that work as well as teaching
children. We need a national agreement, and the challenge for the Government and the country is to do something about the social skills of young children in the same way that we have tried to make improvements in other areas.I agree that more male teachers in primary and lower schools are needed. In all the lower schools that I have visited in my constituency over the past few years, I have seen probably only one or two male teachers. The presence of such teachers is important, particularly for those children who do not have a father at home or a male role model in the household. We all know of wonderful examples of male teachers in lower and primary schools who are excellent role models to whom children relate well, which is important for their development. We need to take that seriously.
7.9 pm
James Purnell (Stalybridge and Hyde): What is this debate really about? It is really about spreading cynicism about education in this country. The Opposition cannot stand the facts that education results are improving and extra money is going into our schools—and they cannot promise to match it, so they are trying to erect a smokescreen and distract people's attention from the real improvements on the ground.
Teacher shortages are an issue. Some schools have experienced quite severe problems, which was acknowledged by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. However, may I draw people's memory back to the days when the Conservatives adjusted the education funding formula? There were no floors and ceilings and local authorities had to make cuts of millions of pounds overnight.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |