| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (Con): I thank both the Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards not only for an advance copy of the statement, but for the constructive, positive and non-partisan way in which they have handled this important matter. As the Secretary of State said, today is hugely important for schools, employers and future generations of young people. I hope that he will pass on from both sides of the House our gratitude to Mike Tomlinson and his team for their diligent, detailed and painstaking work.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, given that what has been sketched out is a 10-year programme that is likely to stretch across three Parliaments, it is important to reach cross-party agreement on at least some aspects of the proposals? Does he accept that the objectives set out by the Tomlinson report—to raise core skills of literacy, numeracy and ICT, to improve vocational education, to encourage greater participation beyond the age of 16, and to stretch and differentiate the most able more clearly and rigorously—are issues on which we can and should all agree? In that spirit, does he accept that proposals to reduce coursework will be widely welcomed as a means by which simultaneously to reduce pupil and teacher workload and to tackle growing allegations about the prevalence of plagiarism, and that the extended project must not become a back-door route to the same problems?
Does the Secretary of State share our strong welcome for the proposal to make receipt of a diploma absolutely contingent on passing a tough, externally assessed literacy and numeracy test? Does he agree that the aim should be to put our young people through fewer but more rigorous exams and to encourage flair and
18 Oct 2004 : Column 647
originality rather than an excessively mechanistic approach? Does he further agree that we must move away from the days when academic subjects were exclusively for the best and vocational subjects entirely for the rest, and that in future every child will need the encouragement and incentive to do well, in challenging and inspiring ways, in both? Does he agree that if we get that right, we can make huge progress in reducing truancy and improving staying-on rates?
The Secretary of State rightly said that the report requires and deserves in-depth study before final detailed conclusions are reached. We entirely endorse that approach and will pursue it ourselves. However, may I press him on some issues not of detail but of principle? Does he agree that Britain, not for a few years under one party but for generations across all parties, has undervalued and under-invested in vocational education? Can we agree that getting it right will require substantial new resources and that we cannot and must not ask schools or colleges to transform their vocational offerings without the wherewithal to do so?
Does the Secretary of State agree with successive Labour and Conservative Ministers in the past 15 years that school league tables are valuable and useful to parents? Does he accept that one can have neither the Prime Minister's vision of choice for parents nor the Conservative vision without those league tables and does he recognise that external assessment at 16 is the absolute prerequisite for them? Does he accept the unequivocal view of the British Chambers of Commerce that external assessment at 16 is essential for employers too?
Does he agree in principle that greater differentiation of the most able means that fewer young people at 18 would get the very highest grade? Tomlinson recommends that the top 5 or 10 per cent. should get his proposed A-double-plus or distinction diploma. We take the view that 5 to 10 per cent. should get the very highest grade by norm referencing. We may well differ on the mechanism, but will he confirm that he accepts the principle that we can no longer have more than 20 per cent. of all A-level students attaining the very highest grade?
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital to make sure that all school leavers have some qualification, but that the way to do that is to raise teaching standards, not to give out qualifications without justification? In that context, will he be very careful about the report's idea that the first of the four proposed tiers of the diploma—the entry level—should be given to people who have not reached the standard of a level 1 NVQ or even a grade G at GCSE?
Does the Secretary of State agree with the CBI that the absolute priority for employers is to raise the standards of functional literacy and numeracy among school leavers, which have been unacceptably poor under successive Governments? Does he therefore agree that that aspect of reform requires the most urgent action? Does he agree with the CBI that an attempt to scrap all existing exams would be an unwelcome and unnecessary diversion from that task?
Finally and most importantly, does the Secretary of State agree that, although there are considerable virtues in the diploma idea, it should include, not replace,
18 Oct 2004 : Column 648
GCSEs and A-levels? As this is the most important issue for many of those observing these discussions, may I press him specifically? Is it his view, as it is mine, that the relevant diploma should have, up front on its front page, the subject and grade that a pupil has attained at A-level or GCSE? Does he agree with Mike Tomlinson's repeated denials in interviews that he is recommending the end of A-levels and GCSEs? If that is the Secretary of State's view, will he make it clear that he will not allow abolition to become the agenda of those who seek to implement recommendation 2 of the report, which is, as he knows, somewhat ambiguous? It says both that
"the existing system of qualifications taken by 14–19 year-olds should be replaced"
"Existing qualifications such as GCSEs"
"A-levels . . . should cease to be free-standing qualifications in their own right but should evolve to become components of the Diploma".
Which is it? Will the Secretary of State join me in clearly, unequivocally and finally ruling out the abolition of those exams?
The Tomlinson report offers a real chance for progress if we focus absolutely on the imperatives of improving vocational education and raising basic standards of functional literacy and numeracy. We must not waste time instead on a debate about abolishing and replacing well-understood and respected GCSEs and A-levels. We must build on what works, not scrap everything and start all over again. Above all, we must raise standards, not water them down. I, too, hope that we can all agree about that.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his overall approach. I will pass on his gratitude to Mr. Tomlinson and his committee. I endorse what he said about having to work on a cross-party basis in so far as we can. That does not mean that we will agree on every particular—no one expects that—but it requires that we have a mature discussion in a positive way.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general points about the extended project work and coursework, the external rigours of the diploma, the need for flair and originality and the importance of academic and vocational education. I also agree that the development of a proper vocational offer has resource implications that need to be dealt with properly, although I think that collaboration between schools and colleges and employers can take us some way down that route.
League tables do indeed have value at 16 and require rigorous external assessment. As I said in my statement, a rigorous external assessment regime at 16 is critical to the system.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's points about a quota for A-level grades. I heard his party leader making similar remarks earlier today. I believe that their view is an outdated concept of awarding A-level grades by quota, not quality, and I think it is entirely the wrong approach. It was in fact my predecessor, Sir Keith Joseph, who brought about the changes that led to the situation of which they are complaining. It is rare that I would applaud Sir Keith and pray him in aid against the current Conservative party, but the fact is that we have to have an assessment system that looks at people's
18 Oct 2004 : Column 649
quality and drives forward their attainment rather than taking some arbitrary "Graded grains make finer flour" approach.
The whole thrust of the proposals is to raise standards throughout, including in the core skills, such as literacy and numeracy, and we will certainly support that. I agree that progress can be made very quickly in this area, but perhaps I should emphasise that I announced the White Paper early in the new year because I want to set out a very clear programme of work dealing with all those proposals in order, precisely as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
I need to reassert what Mr. Tomlinson said today on A-levels and GCSEs. He said:
"The point I would like to make very clear is that these proposals will not—and I do not know how many times I will have to repeat it—not mean the abolition of external examinations, nor the abolition of GCSE, AS and A-levels as courses and subjects."
I agree that this diploma must show the grades in each of the subjects and the particular level of qualification—that is what it ought to be.
Finally, I agree that the suggestion that the whole report is about the abolition of exams is a complete misreading of the whole thrust of what we are about. The report is about raising standards at all levels of education and ensuring that every young person can fulfil their aspirations in a way that the current system makes difficult rather than simple to achieve.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |