Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360
- 370)
MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2003
SIR PETER
LAMPL AND
DR TESSA
STONE
Q360 Mr Pollard: It is interesting
that you mention choice. I shall give you an example in my own
constituency. We have a girls' school.
Sir Peter Lampl: What is your
constituency?
Q361 Mr Pollard: St Albans; it is
very middle class. It is heavily oversubscribed: 180 are admitted
each year and they have about 300 applicants, so little choice
there. It is obviously popular. Would you suggest that this school
should be expanded so that it satisfies all the choice that is
in the system?
Sir Peter Lampl: That is a very
difficult question.
Q362 Mr Pollard: You have been forthright
so far, Sir Peter.
Sir Peter Lampl: I do not have
a strong view on this one. It is a very difficult question whether
you let schools expand. There is obviously an optimal size for
school and if you double the school because you have double the
applicants, it is not clear that is going to work anyway and then
you have to look at the effect on other schools. I do not have
a strong view on that. There are many people better qualified
to give you an opinion on that.
Q363 Chairman: There is a bit of
me, when I hear some of the things you say, which would have thought
you would support something like banding: a school with a diverse
background but a range of abilities mixed together and educated
together. That in a sense is as important for many people as your
ability mix across the social divide. Are you against banding?
Sir Peter Lampl: I do not think
I am. I still have some questions around how it really works in
practice, because, as I understand it, maybe you or somebody can
explain it, a school can elect a certain number of bands and then
if it is over-subscribed it has to accept a certain number of
children in relation to how many are in the band. I presume those
children are then actually selected on a random basis. Say there
are three times as many children or applicants in a certain band
as there are places, I assume that is then done on a random basis.
In a perverse sort of way, if I am in a middle-class area, there
are going to be lots more kids in the top bands—I am just
trying to think how it works—would it not behove me to persuade
my child not to do so well in those tests and maybe there is a
lot more room at the bottom end? It seems a little perverse. I
do not know how it works. I like the idea. The other thing is
that you are banding in terms of ability and not parental background
and parental support is as big if not a bigger factor than ability.
I believe you can assure an ability mix with banding, assuming
everyone is taking the test straight up, but can you really assure
a social mix? I am very interested in banding: I just have some
questions as to how it might work in practice and whether it gives
you the end result you want.
Q364 Jeff Ennis: I do not know that
you would advocate it, Sir Peter, but you obviously put great
store on getting a better social mix, which I totally agree with.
Do you think we ought to have a minimum percentage of children
which each school ought to have on free school meals?
Sir Peter Lampl: I do not want
to come in and say you have to have a certain percentage. We have
looked at the top 200 state schools and it is pretty shocking.
They have 3% free school meals. I would say to all those schools,
the London Oratories, the Pate's grammar schools—Pate's
is doing it voluntarily—that they really have a social mix
problem and we would like them to do something about that. There
are ways of doing it and we have a model and maybe you provide
the school with some funding. It has to be a soft touch approach.
To go in saying everyone has to have at least 10% free school
meals, the average is 17, is wrong. When you see the grammar schools
on 2.1%—
Q365 Jeff Ennis: You certainly think
schools should look in admissions terms at trying to—
Sir Peter Lampl: Absolutely. I
would be saying to those schools, we would like them to work on
their social mix, but in a sensitive way, persuading kids to apply.
Q366 Mr Simmonds: You said that competition
raises standards.
Sir Peter Lampl: Yes; I think
it does.
Q367 Mr Simmonds: You think competition
raises standards. Assuming that choice is part of competition,
do you think that a solution to the problem you are identifying
is to increase the choice that parents have as to the number and
type of schools they could choose to send their children to?
Sir Peter Lampl: There is a trade-off
here. If you get too many schools coming in, if you have a completely
free market, I am not sure I am really for that. If you just open
the whole thing up, you are going to get even more differential
choice between the well-off and the not-so-well-off. A certain
amount of choice is desirable. I am not sure I would just say
that every school is its own admissions authority and they have
complete freedom of choice. I am not sure I would go that far.
There is a trade-off here.
Q368 Mr Simmonds: Do you not accept
that in the purest argument, if you had total free choice, people
would not choose based on a monetary decision-making process?
They would make a choice on what was best for their particular
child, irrespective of the socio-economic background they came
from. Therefore you would solve that socio-economic problem you
are talking about.
Sir Peter Lampl: Yes, I think
there is an argument for that.
Q369 Chairman: Just to conclude,
okay, you have been in this business of delving into a whole range
of very interesting areas for six or seven years now, if I remember
rightly. If you were Secretary of State, what changes would you
make in general? Is there anything in admissions that you would
change that you think would be, not exactly a silver bullet but,
the most positive way to change the system we have now?
Sir Peter Lampl: What would I
change in general? We have worked in a number of areas. University
admissions need to be sorted out and we have a task force working
on that, in which I am involved. That whole area, which you have
looked at and we have all looked at, is something I would change.
The other thing on the university side is university funding.
Incidentally, I almost completely agree with your Committee's
recommendations on that and totally support that and have come
out in print on that. On the school side, what I would really
change, is that one of the problems with education has been that
there has been so much change, even in the short time I have been
involved, which has been nearly seven years now, there have been
four Secretaries of State for Education, five Schools Ministers,
four Higher Education Ministers, a lot of turnover in the Civil
Service. I would say that is no way to run a business and in my
opinion this should be run more like a business and we should
be coming up with more practical cost effective solutions to problems.
I wish we could get away from ideology and really come up with
practical solutions like the sorts of things we have proposed
here. School busing should be looked at very carefully. Just one
of the things I would focus on is looking at the school starting
times; it is a really important issue. In the States there are
three types of schools: elementary schools start at seven thirty,
middle schools start at eight fifteen, high schools start at nine.
That means you can bus all the kids and you can get three runs
in the morning, a lot of trips in the middle of the day to take
them to museums, etcetera, and you get three in the afternoon.
It is a very efficient way of getting kids to school. One of the
things, if I were Secretary of State, that I would be looking
at very carefully, is starting secondary schools between 8.00
and 8.15 and primary schools at 9 to 9.15. We could then have
at least four guaranteed bus runs per day and spread out the whole
thing. The rush hour is becoming a huge issue. There are many
practical things like that. I would like to see us getting away
from things like City Academies, which are huge amounts of money
and create big publicity, and trying to come up with practical,
cost effective solutions to our education.
Q370 Chairman: You used the word
"ideology", we did not. What ideological policy
does this Government have which you would like to change?
Sir Peter Lampl: I think this
Government is opposed to any selection. If ever I suggest doing
anything with private schools or grammar schools—and I have
suggested it to three secretaries of state now, they are not very
interested, they just do not want to know. It is "I don't
want to get involved with grammar schools and independent schools
are not my department". That is one thing. There is a hostility
to selection and I might share that but practically selection
is taking place whether you like it or not. This ideological thing
of not wanting to be involved in anything which is selecting is
another problem. I find it amazing that this Government has used
the private sector in health, in schools, in certain areas like
running LEAs, etcetera, but in terms of the biggest private competence
in this country in education, private schools, they have not really
in any effective way to use that resource for the general good.
I think there are some ideological reasons why that is. I should
like to see us very practically use that resource. We have a proposal,
and there are others, on how you could work with the independent
sector in a meaningful way.
Chairman: Sir Peter, thank you very much
for your time and your evidence. You have been as full and frank
as ever. Thank you very much indeed.
| 
