Examination of Witness(Questions 20-39)
RT HON
CHARLES CLARKE,
MP
WEDNESDAY 11 DECEMBER 2002
20. Can you envisage a day when a school receives
consistently glowing Ofsted reports so that they no longer need
to do tests?
(Mr Clarke) I cannot actually see that. Take Key Stage
2 tests, for example.
21. Or Key Stage 1 perhaps.
(Mr Clarke) I cannot even see that, although there
would be more of a case there. In Key Stage 2 I think it is important
that every child in the country gets past a certain point. I could
have made a change about getting to level four or some points
total across the whole school which took into account the various
levels of attainment of the children and not simply getting to
level four. I can imagine modification. If you ask me the question
whether I can envisage a situation in which a school has no tests
at all, I cannot imagine that, no.
22. It does not sound as though you are modifying
very much. When you said you may be able to imagine doing away
with tests at seven—is that right?
(Mr Clarke) I did not say that, no.
23. I beg your pardon. Do you see a case for
it?
(Mr Clarke) I do not. What you said was, "Could
I see a case for getting rid of all tests?" I said, "I
could not imagine it at KS2?" You then said, "What about
KS1?" I said that I thought that there may be an argument,
but I was not saying so.
24. What would be the reasons for that?
(Mr Clarke) The only reason would be to allow more
flexibility in the school in those early years. I am in danger
of leading the Committee down the wrong path. I certainly do not
have in mind removing KS1, 2, 3 or 4. I do not think that that
would be the right way to go. I can imagine a different process
of testing. I can imagine changing to a points system rather than
everyone getting to a certain level, for example level 4 or level
2. I can imagine changes. As I said to Mr Holmes on whether I
can imagine getting to a point where we do not have a test regime
at all, I do not think I can see that, no.
25. Can I bring you back to another comment
about schools catering for the needs of every child? I assume
that you mean on the broad range of need. Perhaps I can read you
an extract from the Government's human rights annual report published
in 2002. On page 166 it says: "School segregation is a particularly
severe form of racial discrimination against the Roma in some
Central and Eastern European countries and for children of asylum
seekers in the UK, and has been highlighted and criticised by
the EU". That was published in September 2002. How does that
sit with the Government's policy of school segregation of children
of asylum seekers at accommodation centres?
(Mr Clarke) I do not accept the description at all.
As I am sure you have, I have visited a number of schools that
have small and large numbers of asylum seekers' children and they
are very good schools too. They have done very well through it
and have gained from the different cultures coming through. It
creates certain divisions and stability.
26. Who says it does?
(Mr Clarke) I am certain that it does. I was going
to say that the positive side is that it brings more quality to
the school because of the range of different experiences which
makes it a good thing for a school. If you talk to a number of
heads where there are numbers of asylum seekers' children I think
they would probably tell you that. If they have to weigh up the
possibilities of mobility against the benefits of having a wide
range of pupils coming to the school, that is the case. Today
there is a large number of asylum seekers' children being educated
in our schools side by side with other children. So I do not accept
the fundamental distinction. We then come to the point about the
power to provide education in accommodation centres, which, as
yet, is not a power that has been exercised in the sense that
we do not have the accommodation centres where that can be the
case. The argument for that is familiar to the House and to the
other place where it has been debated very fully. The essential
argument is that if there is to be an accommodation centre regime
which, by hypothesis, will resolve the issues about testing the
rights of asylum seekers, rather than the existing regime, then
it is more rational to have some facilities to provide education
in those places rather than the children going into the local
school system. That is a controversial question across the House,
as you know, and no doubt the debate will continue on practicalities
when we see how it actually works.
27. Do you think that it is odd that we have
the policy on the accommodation centres which will segregate children
educationally? There is no two ways about it, they will be educated
but not at a mainstream school. They will be educated alone. Then
later in the year the Government publishes this document and says
that school segregation is a form of discrimination.
(Mr Clarke) I do not accept the proposition that we
have a generally segregated system for the education of asylum
seekers' children in this country as we speak. I do not think
that that is the case. I was trying to give the examples. I am
sure that you have seen many schools where asylum seekers' children
are educated side by side with other children. That is the characteristic
of our system. We then talk about a new position in the future,
which is what the legislation is about. The question is whether
there are in a limited number of geographical locations places
where there would be segregated education of the kind that you
mention. We shall see what happens. The general description that
we have a segregated system now is one that I do not accept.
28. You were in charge of co-ordinating government
policy in your previous job.
(Mr Clarke) Over Ministers' heads!
29. There was one arm of Government saying one
thing and the Home Office and the education department saying
another.
(Mr Clarke) You are kindly referring to my previous
job. One thing that I tried to do in that job, and I am actually
trying to do in this job, is to stimulate the idea that the Government
can debate things and talk in different ways about different issues.
I have always thought that the idea that there is one line for
the Government is not necessarily the best way to proceed. One
can have an interesting debate on higher education and finance,
but it does not exercise me in the slightest that people have
different views. That is the reality. Perhaps it is the case on
this issue too.
30. Having a debate is all well and good, but
when a government publication says one thing and the policy says
another, it is not a matter for debate but for you to answer,
surely.
(Mr Clarke) With respect, I do not think that that
is right. Maybe I am not saying clearly enough that I do not believe
that it is true that we have a segregated system as between asylum
seekers' children and others in Britain now. I do not think that
is true. I have heard what you have said, but if you ask my opinion
I do not think that it is true. I am acknowledging that the power
now exists in law to create a new state of affairs around the
accommodation centres. We shall have to see how that emerges in
practice. I do not think that the fundamental premise from the
report that you quoted that we have a segregated system in this
country is right. I do not think it is.
Jeff Ennis
31. In a recent Audit Commission report the
controller of the commission, Sir Andrew Foster, said: "League
tables weaken schools' commitment to working with pupils with
SEN—for fear they will drag down their position . . . this
has a damaging effect on staff morale and explains the reluctance
of some head teachers to admit pupils with SEN". What do
you say about that statement?
(Mr Clarke) I say that the lesson is true. I think
that there is no doubt that there was a tendency in some schools
early in the history of league tables to exclude pupils and certainly
to give attention to pupils whom they thought would do well. I
do not think that that was widespread, but I am certainly saying
that I am aware of schools of which that point could be made.
As time has evolved, and as we have become less concerned about
the precise position in the league tables, the issue that Andrew
Foster raises is less true. To the extent that it is true—it
comes from a reputable body whose opinions I respect—we
have to put in processes for dealing with that. We can do it in
league tables by not including some students in the national league
tables in relation to some aspects that we have mentioned. One
thing to point out is that there are pupils who have real difficulty
in doing well in particular areas. That is why shifting league
tables to a more value-added approach is a better way of doing
it.
32. Do you think therefore that we should have
a system of reward, for example, for schools that take over and
above their fair share of pupils with SEN?
(Mr Clarke) Yes, I do think that. I think there is
already a reward system which operates in that way. When I have
spoken to places that have taken on more SEN children they have
been proud of their schools and what they have achieved for those
children and they have developed expertise and strengths. One
of our failings thus far is not always having strong relationships
between special schools and mainstream schools. One of the benefits
of the specialist schools programme has been that specialist schools
have formed partnerships with other schools and most have included
partnerships with special schools in their areas. Another thing
we should talk about is special schools being specialist schools
in that particular special need. To the extent that collaboration
is weakened by the existing system, I agree with the point that
you are making.
33. Changing the subject, I know that like me,
you visit your local schools. I had the opportunity of visiting
other schools in Birmingham recently. Nearly every teacher I speak
to in any school says that this Government are doing a fantastic
job for education. I always then say, "What more do we need
to do to make it even better?" They always say, "The
Government need to trust us more as teachers". The education
staff feel that they do not have the trust of the Government.
What can we as a Government do to ensure that we instill in them
that feeling of trust?
(Mr Clarke) The point is very perceptive and I agree
with it completely. My first speech, which I have repeated to
subsequent meetings of head teachers, said that I would focus
on three things: professionalism, teamwork and leadership. I described
professionalism as having four points: the first is constantly
focussing on standards and that relates to children with special
needs. The second one relates to subject specialism, a point to
which I referred earlier. We have to be stronger in supporting
the subject interests of teachers in secondary and in primary
schools and do more in that area. The third is that we have to
hammer the bureaucracy aspect. There is no doubt that teachers
feel that they do not spend their time teaching, but filling in
forms and so on. I give that such a high priority that I have
taken personal responsibility for that in my department. We have
to sort out the system, including with agencies such as Ofsted,
the TTA and so on. That would make a big impact. The fourth point
relates to misconduct. It is very difficult to be a highly professional
teacher at a time when you are actually just trying to keep the
show on the road as a result of a few people wrecking the system.
I shall have more to say about that tomorrow. I see those four
measures as key matters concerned with professionalism. The phrase
that I have used is that we have to support the profession and
we are talking about informing the profession. We have to set
the teaching profession priorities rather than being on top of
them. That said, I think it is important to maintain standards
and it is important to maintain pressure. I profoundly agree with
the point being made, that we have to change the impression.
Chairman: We have a very good attendance
rate in this Committee, but Mark Simmonds has one of the best
excuses I have ever heard for leaving early. He is going to his
child's nativity play.
Mr Simmonds
34. Secretary of State, I want to ask you what
is the main thrust behind the Government's diversity agenda? Is
it the belief that some schools or those with specialist status
will increase educational attainment in relation to other schools
or is it more to do with parental, and therefore, student choice?
(Mr Clarke) It is probably the first rather than the
second. I think there is an element of parental choice. There
is a variety of different specialist schools in a city like Norwich
or even in Lincolnshire in relation to more diversity. But there
is an element of choice. However, more important is the school
improvement motive to try to ensure that schools focus more on
the individual needs of individual children in the school.
35. Are you aware of the Ofsted comments that
we had at this Committee that there was no proof whatever that
the schools that had specialist status today were improving at
any greater extent than those schools that had not received specialist
status?
(Mr Clarke) I saw the report of the comments. I have
spoken subsequently about it. I do not think that the comments
of the chief inspector had quite the interpretation that you give
them. I think what he was saying was that it would take some time
to understand the implications fully and that we should not rush
to judgments in this area. That is a very legitimate thing to
say. It is also the case that there have been better results at
specialist schools. All I can say is that they may not be affected
in your own constituency, but where there have been specialist
schools I have seen a real drive, motivation and energy in the
school. One thing that has been most dispiriting is people being
told that they cannot have specialist school status. That is why
I have made the change that I have to enable that to go wider.
I take the preliminary view that specialist schools are doing
very well.
36. You obviously believe that specialist schools
and their diversity will increase attainment. Therefore, do you
disagree with head teachers and the governors, not in my constituency
but elsewhere, who say to me that the vast majority of schools
who want specialist status are only applying to get additional
funding?
(Mr Clarke) I do. When I talk to head teachers in
my constituency about specialist status that has not been the
key motive. It has been a motive, but it is not the key motive.
The key motive has been options in the local community which I
think they would say have brought significant benefits to the
school. I certainly see a distinction at present in specialist
schools.
37. How do you explain the potential knock-on
impact of the schools surrounding the specialist school who feel
that it may create a two-tier system?
(Mr Clarke) I do not believe that. When people talk
about two-tier systems in this context, the only two-tier system
is that between private education and maintained education. If
you look at a city like London or Bristol it seems to me that
that is the real division that has opened up. I think there are
ways in which we can overcome that. Within the maintained system
I do not accept that that is taking place. If that fear were there,
I hope that what I have announced about encouraging more schools
to go down the specialist school route will meet those concerns.
Chairman
38. When we went to New Zealand we were struck
by the danger, following that to its absolute conclusion, of giving
schools total independence. In New Zealand we saw schools getting
systemic change across the piece but it was almost impossible
to re-invent and multiply the numbers, according to the department
of education because they have no local education authorities.
Once they have given that total independence to schools, that
led to a very difficult task if you wanted what I think Tim Brighouse
called system change. You mentioned the Caroline Benn memorial
lecture and there is another Caroline Benn memorial lecture, which
I hope you have read because we found it very interesting. It
complemented the evidence that Tim Brighouse gave to this Committee,
that instead of individual schools competing for superiority,
one against another, the way ahead has to be a collegiate system
where groups of schools co-operate together to raise all the schools.
I hope that we do not fall into this trap. Some of us were worried
that many approved many things in your announcement last week,
but are we going to end up with individual schools, dog-eat-dog,
devil take the hindmost, and we shall not have the stability,
the systemic change that we would like to see?
(Mr Clarke) I really hope that I can offer the Committee
reassurance on this point. I agree with every word that you have
just said. I have read the Caroline Benn memorial lecture given
by Professor Chitty and I agree with it. I admire Tim Brighouse
and my first task in this job was to appoint him to the London
job. That is an indication of the respect with which I hold him.
As my colleague, David Miliband, will announce in due course,
the leadership incentive programme that we are talking about is
about collaboration of schools and about schools working together
in a collaborative fashion; it is teams of schools sharing skills
and sharing experiences. As you will know, some of the Excellence
in Cities cluster approach is also a management concept approach.
We very much want to promote schools working together. We very
much deprecate schools working in opposition to each other. I
have been a Norfolk MP since 1997 and there has been a genuine
intention between the grant maintained schools and the rest and
the LEA and so on, which followed serious historic issues which
we had to try to tackle. The only other thing I would say in relation
to this is that the role of the LEA is important. The LEA can
and should have a major school improvement role. My only question
is this important question: how well the LEA fulfils that function?
I think that that is variable across the country. It seems to
me that not only groups of schools but also groups of primary
and secondary schools working together and the LEA all have the
responsibility of trying to promote collaborative rather than
competitive roles between schools. I shall try to ensure that
my department promotes that approach.
Valerie Davey
39. I am sure that all the Committee welcome
that statement. In view of what you have just said, had you been
Secretary of State when the specialist schools legislation was
going through, would you have insisted on an element of selection
by the schools?
(Mr Clarke) As you know, something like 95% of specialist
schools have no selection at all. I am happy with that state of
affairs. I know the Committee appreciates that we are dealing
with a particular inheritance in this area. In certain parts of
the country selection remains a serious issue. I was in Kent last
week and it is an issue there as it is in Hertfordshire, and Buckinghamshire.
There are major questions about how we deal with that. I do not
think that I would change the form of legislation. I have not
thought about it in the way in which you ask the question. I shall
think about that. I am not in favour of promoting further selection
in specialist schools other than what exists at the moment.
| 
