Examination of Witness (Questions 220-239)
TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2003
RT HON
MR CHARLES
CLARKE
220. Turning to schools for a moment, do you
think that education for sustainable development at the moment
is being promoted well in schools or would you like to see different
things being done?
(Mr Clarke) I think it is being done quite well but
not well enough. If you look at the Eco-Schools Initiative, for
example, supported by the EU and Environment Programme, and if
you go through their website, which I have done, it is quite good
but not good enough is what I would say. I think it is initiatives
like that which you need to develop and take forward. I think
there are curricula issues where it ought to be possible—for
example, in food technology, for example in statistics—to
develop systems which encourage and move it forward. I think in
citizenship there is a variety of different initiatives that operate
there at the moment, and it is okay, but I would say all of it
is okay but not good enough. I think the answer to it is for us
to have a stronger focus on where we ought to be going.
221. In one of the memoranda, the later of the
two we have received, on citizenship it says, "Pupils acquire
the knowledge, skills and understanding to help them become active
and informed citizens." It seems like we have already got
there, judging by this statement; that we have already measured
it and we now know that pupils are acquiring these skills rather
than just learning about them.
(Mr Clarke) To be frank, I think that since this Government
introduced citizenship into the curriculum in 1998-99 there has
been a significant move forward compared to where it was. If you
say to me, "Have we got where we ought to be," I agree
we have not, but I do think we are moving in the right direction
and I do not think we should—and I certainly will not—undervalue
what has been achieved by saying it is not there. I think, on
the contrary, we want to encourage those who are moving down that
line and look for improvement rather than saying that what we
have done is not good enough. That is what my department's evidence
is trying to reflect.
222. Would any part of the forthcoming strategies
try to address or question how to try to measure progress on this?
It seems to me—and I have said this previously in committee—that
you can teach people things in schools but when they leave the
school gates their behaviour is then influenced by a whole range
of other factors.
(Mr Clarke) I think this is a very tough question.
I have thought about the measurement question and I do not have
good answers, other than in terms of inputs. I mean that you can
measure the number of hours that are spent teaching these things
and that is okay but I do not think at the end of the day that
is a good measure. It is outputs which are important. Again, I
would welcome the views of yourself personally and also the Committee
on the outputs we might measure which would be positive.
223. Perhaps a lot of these sort of requests
are going to bodies like Ofsted, for things that they should include
in their measurements. Do you think they should perhaps include
something on education for sustainable development?
(Mr Clarke) I think there is a very good case for
doing that. We are currently discussing with Ofsted. That is one
of the recommendations from Sir Geoffrey Holland's Committee and
we are currently discussing how we might do that. We are looking
at the whole role of Ofsted, as we have gone through, and we are
now going to the third cycle of Ofsted reports and much of the
initial role in terms of dealing with the seriously failing schools
has been addressed, and the question of how we expect schools
in a more rounded way, if I may put it like that, which would
include this subject, is right at the top of our agenda.
224. Have you had any preliminary information
about Ofsted's current research into this area?
(Mr Clarke) I have not myself, no. It may be that
it exists but I have not myself studied it.
Chairman
225. Just before we leave this whole issue of
learning, perhaps you could tell us, in the light of your work
as a green minister, do you see your department taking the lead
across the whole of government in getting the whole of sustainable
development championed across government? Do you see that as the
intention of your department and your work as a green minister?
(Mr Clarke) Not specifically, except
in so far as the learning and skills agenda is one that goes across
the department. I think it is our responsibility within the learning
and skills agenda, whether in schools or in post-school education,
lifelong learning or whatever, to champion that issue throughout
that, and that necessarily knocks on into other departments of
government, but I do not see it as our responsibility to be leading
the way right across the whole of government. I see that more
as DEFRA's responsibility.
226. In the context of the green minister role,
could you perhaps help the Committee as to whose responsibility
it should be to take that lead, to take that challenge forward
in respect of learning.
(Mr Clarke) In respect of learning I am sorry, I misunderstood
the question. In respect of learning, I think it is our responsibility.
227. In respect of learning for sustainable
development.
(Mr Clarke) Okay, that is our responsibility. I would
say that is our responsibility. I misunderstood you earlier. I
thought you were talking about the responsibility for sustainable
development.
228. No, responsibility for learning, without
which we cannot really achieve any sustainable development.
(Mr Clarke) In that case, we are at one. I think it
is the responsibility of our department to champion education
and learning skills for sustainable development across government.
229. Just following on from that, could you
give us a little bit more of an idea as to how the various education
agencies (for example, the Teacher Training Agency, the Learning
and Skills Council) deal with this. Do they get together to discuss
this in a strategic way?
(Mr Clarke) Not yet. But I think they should.
230. When do you think they might?
(Mr Clarke) You can take them separately. The LSC
is very much considering this in the context of the skills White
Paper which I mentioned earlier and it is considering it. The
Teacher Training Agency, it is on its agenda and there are various
aspects within the TTA that develop this. Following on from my
answer to Mr Challen (where I am acknowledging that we do not
yet have a strong enough strategic approach as opposed to a checklist
approach), I think that will not happen in the way you are describing
until we have a stronger strategic approach, which is what I am
keen to get.
Mr Chaytor
231. Could I just pursue some of the school
issues that Mr Challen raised. In respect of the flagship policies
for school improvement and raising of standards—and I am
thinking of Specialist Schools and Excellence in Cities—what
guidance is there from government to those two programmes that
sustainable development should be at the heart of what schools
are trying to achieve?
(Mr Clarke) Not a great deal, if I am
being blunt.
232. Is that a missed opportunity?
(Mr Clarke) To an extent, but there is a tension,
which from your membership of the Education Select Committee you
have discussed a lot and which we have also discussed in this
Select Committee, between a drive to raise educational standards
narrowly defined (meaning academic outcomes) and a more rounded
school curriculum across the whole range. There is a tension which
we are currently trying to resolve, I hope in a more positive
way, which would allow sustainable development to be a big feature
along with other things of the overall curriculum in a better
way. But if you are asking me, as you did: What exists in our
current guidance, our current approaches, in relation to these
initiatives? that is why I say not a lot. Do I think it should
be more in the framework? I do.
233. If it should be, what are the opportunities
for changing that as the Excellence in Cities Programme and the
Specialist Schools Programme develop?
(Mr Clarke) As far as specialist schools are concerned,
the approval for specialist schools can and should involve sustainable
development as part of it. As far as the Excellence in Cities
Programme is concerned, that should simply be one of the general
inputs into the overall Excellence in Cities approaches and partnerships—and,
by the way, I think it is in quite a number of partnerships. I
do not want to sound too negative about this; I think, actually,
there is good work being done on this in a number of different
areas but I am trying all the time to say that I do not think
we have done as much as we need to. We should do more—which
is my view—we are not yet at the point of doing more, and,
as you say, to use vehicles like Excellence in Cities and the
Specialist Schools Programmes to do more.
234. If, in respect of the Specialist Schools,
it can and should be part of the guidance, when is that going
to be given to Specialist Schools? Does the department issue that
guidance or is it the Specialist Schools Trust?
(Mr Clarke) I do not know where formally it lies,
but it certainly is a departmental responsibility and we discuss
it with the Specialist Schools Trust. We are developing guidance
at the moment in the light of the White Paper that we produced
two or three months ago—two months, I think—on Towards
a Specialist System.
235. Is there an argument for a new specialism
for schools focused on sustainability?
(Mr Clarke) I would not say so myself. I think there
is an argument for making sure that sustainability is something
that is part of what every school does rather than an argument
that says put it in a particular corner. You are right in a sense,
that if we could develop the specialism in an effective way that
could spread good practice across, it would be worth trying to
do. But I have not thought of it specifically as a specialist
school specialism—but I will think about it.
236. Earlier you said that the Government's
influence over the curriculum was tangential, because presumably
the QCA has responsibility for drawing up the detail of the curriculum
content. What is the interface between what the Government can
prescribe and the responsibility of the QCA? We know that there
are areas where the Government are very prescriptive.
(Mr Clarke) The reason I used the word "tangential"
is that I think the relationship between what the QCA does or
does not do and what the department does or does not do and the
curriculum is not as clearly set out as it needs to be. As I told
the Select Committee on Education a while ago, we are very actively
looking at that relationship to get it right. It is actually within
the power of the Secretary of State to lay down what the curriculum
is but the convention and practice has been—
237. You have more power than you thought you
would have.
(Mr Clarke) I have more power than I use. That, Mr
Chaytor, is just a characteristic of the way I like to do business.
The QCA, as a result of a whole set f custom and practice, which
I respect, has an independent authority in these areas which I
think it is important that it should have, but we are currently
discussing very actively, most recently at an event I had yesterday
evening, what the nature of that relationship should be, how we
move it forward, the aspects we should be developing, and sustainable
development well comes within that framework.
238. I think you said that in a couple of weeks
you are going to publish a capital strategy. We are in the middle
of an enormous programme of school building of £3 billion
a year or more, the PFI schemes are now well underway. Is there
any guidance to local authorities or PFI contractors about sustainability
criteria built into these projects?
(Mr Clarke) We actually published our capital strategy
about two weeks ago. What we are publishing in the next couple
of weeks is the initial round of allocations to authorities—
239. In the strategy published two weeks ago,
is there any reference to sustainability?
(Mr Clarke) There is reference to it and there is
guidance we offer, but the question of whether it is taken up
and how well it operates is another matter. The question really
is not so much whether guidance exists as how effective our monitoring
procedures are actually to get adherence to it. We have had various
initiatives which operate in this area. For example, we have a
design brief for schools for the future, called Schools for
the Future, which has design solutions, and designs for primary
and secondary schools are available for use by LEAs and also by
larger procurement agents to deliver large-scale school replacement
programmes. That does include revised energy targets in line with
the new part L2 of the building regulations on conservation of
fuel and power but it does include a bespoke building and research
establishment and environment assessment method for schools. We
have also recently published Classrooms for the Future
which has excellent designs and purpose-made learning environments
that do incorporate sustainable development. We also fund the
energy saving Trust School Energy Programme which relates to this
as well. So there is a range of different things that we have
published of this kind but my worry is how effectively do we make
this happen in terms of the building that is actually taking place
and is moving forward. I suspect the answer is that as far as
new buildings are concerned it is not bad at all, but, by definition,
that is a very small part of the overall capital programme that
we have and the question is to get it more into the rest of the
capital programme in a sustainable way. When you look at various
savings that can be achieved in heat and power, for example, by
investing in better quality schools, I am not convinced that that
is at the heart of most local education authorities' or individual
school's capital or thinking, but it has not been at the heart
of our thinking either. I think we have a number of guidance documents—and
I have given some examples—which help us in those areas.
|
