| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Chris Grayling: I know the hon. Gentleman has taken a careful interest in the Conservative higher education policy. Will he confirm the inaccuracy of his most recent comments? He knows that our policy retains the income-contingent system of repayments that the Minister praised so lavishly and said would be no deterrent at all to anyone going into higher education.
Mr. Rendel: I can confirm that the level at which graduates start paying and the amount that they pay once their income rises above that level is the same as under the Government's policy. That is my understanding, and it does not negate either of the two comments that I have just made. It is irrelevant to both. If graduates choose to repay over five years to avoid having to pay massive interest, that would eat up 30 per cent. I did not say that they had to; I said if they choose to. The hon. Gentleman was not listening to my comments. The Conservatives want the poorest to pay extra so that the richest do not have to pay any fees—a sort of socialism for the rich. So much for removing class from their higher education policy.
There is a measure of agreement in the House that perhaps the most important consideration when discussing fair access to higher education is the system of qualifications at secondary school. It is noteworthy that a Conservative motion on university admissions contains nothing about the importance of secondary education. It is widely recognised that individuals who are disadvantaged lower down the educational ladder are much more likely to be disadvantaged in university admissions.
A fair system of student funding and support and an approach to admissions that takes account of potential as opposed to exam results alone are important parts of the equation, but so are rigorous efforts to ensure that no child is left behind in our schools. The key is to increase the numbers from lower socio-economic groups who stay on at school after 16. Tomlinson's model neatly fits the "climbing frame for learning" that the Liberal Democrats propose in our paper "Quality,
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1170
Diversity and Choice", which recognises different routes into and paths through higher education, catering for part-time as well as full-time study and valuing vocational as well as academic learning. That amounts to a far more joined-up approach to education policy.
The widening participation agenda in higher education cannot be viewed in isolation from the further education sector, schools or early-years provision. In the past two years, a formidable lobby has been constructed in support of our universities. Liberal Democrats want a similar dedication of purpose to deal with the needs of our colleges.
Conservative understanding of educational progression is that of the royal route from school to school sixth form to full-time higher education. However, nearly as many young people take A-levels at sixth form colleges and general further education colleges as at state secondary schools. Young people at the former institutions tend to come from lower socio-economic groups. That is why further education colleges are so important in the widening participation agenda. The need to build strong progression routes from vocational level 3 to higher education is also important.
Conservatives have little to contribute to that wider agenda. The headline proposal in their exams policy was announced by the leader of the Conservative party on 18 October. He stated:
"We will change the system to ensure that the highest grade of A-level should only be awarded to a fixed proportion of students sitting the subject that year."
The absurdity of such a position is clear. It means that the standard represented by the A grade will vary from year to year. Two students who receive the same mark a year apart could receive a different grade, depending on the overall performance of their year group. That has obvious implications for their chances of going to university and makes it impossible for employers to judge fairly between candidates of different ages on their academic qualifications.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) has said that the fixed proportion will be the top 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. That means a reduction of between a half and three quarters in the numbers awarded the highest grade this year.
Mr. Collins: Does the hon. Gentleman reject the Tomlinson recommendation that a minority of those who currently get the A grade should get the top grade in future? Tomlinson proposes that the top grade should be A-plus and A-double-plus. If the hon. Gentleman criticises the idea of reducing the numbers who get the top grade at A-level, he explicitly rejects a Tomlinson finding.
Mr. Rendel: I was referring to norm referencing. The Tories have got it wrong, because norm referencing means that one cannot accurately compare years.
The Liberal Democrats would redirect funds towards early-years education. The importance of early-years education has already been mentioned and we want the Government to move further towards the goal of universal child care provision, building on the progress that has already been made. Those policies are important because they contribute to the wider distribution of educational opportunity, with long-term benefit in access to higher education.
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1171
The Conservatives are hunting a pussycat that they have chosen to believe is a tiger, while their credibility on the main issues diminishes by the day. It is sensible to say that the state should not try to make academic judgments, but it is not sensible to say that public policy has no role in ensuring fairness and a level playing field in university admissions.
Class should not be a factor in determining educational opportunities, but claiming that economic and social circumstance has no impact on the life chances of many in our society is an irresponsible denial of reality. Subsequently to pursue policies that will deepen rather than heal social divisions is unforgivable.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It may be appropriate for me to remind hon. Members at this point that Mr. Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
4.59 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), and I listened carefully to what he had to say today.
So far this has been an interesting but slightly depressing debate. At one stage I thought that no university other than Oxford would be mentioned, although to an extent that was put to rights later. I certainly had great reservations about listening to a Front-Bench spokesman talk of jackboots and blood sacrifice. A degree of subtlety is required in debate, and I think that that went beyond the bounds of civilised political dialogue. Perhaps I am a little older than the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). Let me tell him that using such terms is not appropriate in this democratic parliamentary Chamber.
I have a particular reason for being depressed about the level of today's debate. We are, I suppose, approaching the run-up to an election. People who are normally sensible, and pretty good at understanding the boundaries of debate, are affected by that. Most of them feel that all of us, whichever side we are on, want to improve the education system of our country and do not want to damage it, and we have an unspoken agreement in the Select Committee and in the Chamber; but, especially here today, I detect a pre-election tendency to say extreme things in order to make political points. If those involved only thought for a moment, they would realise that that does a great deal of damage to confidence in the education system out there in the country.
Only last week, I had the privilege of taking the Select Committee to Finland and Norway. One of the most important comments on the British education system that I have heard when abroad came from the permanent secretary of Norway's education department. He said, "You have come to ask us questions about our education system. Now that I have nine British Members of Parliament here, I would like to ask you some questions. We spend much more money per head of population on education in schools, but we
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1172
do not do nearly as well as you in international tests such as PISA"—the programme for international student assessment—"and TIMMS"—the teacher's instruction management and mapping system. He demonstrated that by showing graphs on his computer. He then said "Something extraordinary has happened in the last four years. You have shifted your educational achievement in schools upwards to a significant extent. Whatever you are doing in the United Kingdom, we want to copy it." It is worth noting that someone outside the normal dialogue of party politics, and outside the country—and, as a civil servant, with no axe to grind—thought that standards in UK schools were being driven up and wanted to know how that was being done. It was clearly not just about money.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale suggested that secondary comprehensive schools were letting everyone down. Evidence to the Select Committee leaves me in no doubt that—regardless of whether we agree with all the Government's reforms—standards in British schools are being driven up. The Select Committee has quite a good memory. In one of our reports, we expressed the view strongly that the 50 per cent. target was nonsense. Indeed, under cross-examination the permanent under-secretary admitted that the target had not resulted from international studies, research or anything else of that kind; the Government wanted a big, round, sexy number. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) was there at the time.
All of us who know about British education know that standards are going up. That inevitably means a surge of both young and older people into higher education. We will surge past that 50 per cent. target, and I think it very damaging to impose any restriction. The 50 per cent. target will be achieved because more and more young and older people will be highly qualified. I celebrate that, and I will have cause to do so again and again.
The Committee also said, on many occasions and in at least two reports, that we believed that the only criterion for admission to university should be ability. Governments should not interfere: ability is what counts. However, we have also pointed out that some of the traditional methods of judging that ability are not as effective as we thought they were. Indeed, some of us have visited Stanford, Princeton and other Ivy league and leading universities in the US to see how they manage admissions. Interestingly, they base their judgments on more criteria. They did not base their judgments on one examination, but took into account SATS, school tests, school recommendations, and personal work that they set for the students. However, those universities did not hold interviews. They said that all their experience and the research suggested that interviews were not effective. I can remember asking Stanford staff why they did not conduct interviews. They said, "If we wanted more people like us, we would interview."
If interviews are not acceptable at 11, 16 and 18, I would point out to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we have some mission creep with regard to structured discussions, although my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards assures me that they are different from interviews. All the research shows that interviews are an unreliable way to choose people.
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1173
Interviewers show a strong tendency to look for people with the same qualities as themselves, which means that students with middle class, professional backgrounds are more likely to succeed.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |