Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1000
- 1013)
MONDAY 8 DECEMBER 2003
MR DAVID
MILIBAND MP AND
MR STEPHEN
TWIGG MP
Q1000 Chairman: It is severely holed
beneath the water line.
Mr Miliband: I think when Parliament
discussed this it tried to recognise that there was a difference
between the Sutton situation—assuming it is as you describe
it—and the Kent/Trafford situation which are selective systems
rather than an individual grammar school and Parliament tried
to set different rules to recognise that different reality. I
do not think it is shot out of the water in that sense.
Q1001 Mr Chaytor: How can you separate
aptitude and ability in respect of information technology?
Mr Miliband: I would prefer to
talk about music. As it happens I asked for a note on different
aptitude tests where they have worked.
Q1002 Mr Chaytor: Has it come yet?
Mr Miliband: It has not, no. To
be fair I only asked for it on Friday. I had a premonition that
this might come up. The Chairman asked me in oral questions two
months ago about aptitude versus ability in the context of the
Adjudicator's further pronouncements on this area. As you know,
we are trying to distinguish between gift and practice and that
is the way in which the aptitude measure is applied. It is restricted
to five of the nine specialisms to try to recognise that in some
areas we cannot make a distinction between aptitude and ability.
In these five we believe we can and there are, as the Adjudicator
himself has said, aptitude tests in these areas to try to recognise
that.
Q1003 Mr Chaytor: The Adjudicator
said they were useless.
Mr Miliband: He said that in certain
cases they were not distinguishing sufficiently between aptitude
and ability, but in another case he upheld the aptitude tests
as being perfectly legitimate.
Q1004 Mr Chaytor: He also said they
were no predictors of future attainment.
Mr Miliband: That is a different
point. The fact that someone is gifted in music or sport at the
age of 11 and wants to try to make a career of it, the fact that
they do not end up being Yo-yo Ma or Jonny Wilkinson does not
mean that it is illegitimate for them to try to be so.
Q1005 Mr Chaytor: Surely the whole
purpose is that they are going to make some progress in their
chosen field and the Adjudicator's judgment is that the aptitude
tests that currently exist do not distinguish between aptitude
and ability and are not predictors of future attainment. It does
not mean that they only predict that those people can be superstars.
Mr Miliband: Or even professionals.
However, in relation to some aptitude tests he found that they
were perfectly good and he was perfectly happy for them to be
used.
Q1006 Mr Chaytor: Are you content
therefore for schools to select, with an appropriate aptitude
test, on the grounds of aptitude and then to discover that the
children selected turn out at the age of 14, 15 or 16 to be completely
useless at the subject they were selected for at 11?
Mr Miliband: It depends on what
you mean by content.
Q1007 Mr Chaytor: Is that not the
logical extension of the policy we have now got?
Mr Miliband: No, that is the opposite
of the logical extension of the policy that we have. The logical
extension of the policy that we have is that we have more people
in music and sport and the other three subjects who are getting
provision that develops their gift.
Q1008 Mr Chaytor: Have we done some
research to monitor the performance of the people selected by
aptitude?
Mr Miliband: Not as far as I know,
no, but I am very happy to write to you about it.
Q1009 Mr Chaytor: How can you make
the statement you have made?
Mr Miliband: You asked about the
logic of the policy and I explained about the logic of the policy.
Q1010 Mr Chaytor: There seems to
be no monitoring of what has taken place. There is no research
done in advance of deciding on the policy.
Mr Miliband: How can you say there
is no monitoring taking place when we can tell you that 5.5% of
schools are using the freedom that they have been given.
Q1011 Mr Chaytor: I think your memorandum
to the Committee says there is no monitoring of the performance
of pupils. Was there some research done in advance?
Mr Miliband: You will have to
ask someone who was here at the time. I was not so I am afraid
I cannot help you on that.
Q1012 Chairman: In principle do you
think it might be worthwhile to monitor whether the 10% of children
allowed to go into schools on aptitude do better, worse or the
same as the others?
Mr Miliband: We know that less
than 6% of pupils are admitted on that basis and we know that
a very small proportion of specialist schools use the freedom
they are given in this respect. Those that do largely do not use
it for 10% of pupils.
Q1013 Chairman: Could the Department,
without any other legislation, instruct all the specialist schools
to take 10% on aptitude?
Mr Miliband: I do not believe
so, no, because the admissions policy is a local matter, not a
national one.
Chairman: Minister it has been a very
good session. Thank you very much, both of you, for your attendance
and we look forward to the next engagement.
| 
