| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is right. How will the Secretary of State encourage students to take up the diplomas when she effectively described them as for the disaffected and academically less able?
Given that the proposals are to cover all young people in the 14 to 19 age group, how will they affect the NEET—not in education, employment or training—group or the 15 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds who are in work but not in training? Where do part-time learners fit into the proposals? They were not mentioned once in the statement. What proposals does the Secretary of State have for extending a statutory right to time off to 16 to 19-year-olds? Without that, her promise of extending education to the age of 19 is an empty gesture.
Where are the funding proposals? Those are of fundamental interest to schools and colleges. I asked the Secretary of State in October—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a long question. [Interruption.] Yes, it is very interesting. Perhaps the Secretary of State can now reply to the hon. Gentleman, who can follow up with parliamentary questions.
Ruth Kelly:
The hon. Gentleman has asked me many questions, which I shall do my best to answer in the time available. We intend to introduce post-qualification application by 2010. We are raising the bar on literacy and numeracy, which are a condition of attaining a specialised diploma or a GCSE diploma. The diplomas will have to include English and maths, and it will not be possible to progress to level 3 without literacy and
23 Feb 2005 : Column 319
numeracy. I assure him that we shall change the league table to include English and maths. That is a key component of our proposals.
The hon. Gentleman asked what a truly comprehensive system would look like. I envisage schools working together in networks with colleges and employers to deliver what every child needs to meet their requirements so that they can learn in a way that suits their motivations, taps their aptitudes and enables them to develop to their full potential.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was consensus about abolishing GCSEs and A-levels. That is not what teachers, parents and children in school tell me. He asked how we could break down the academic/vocational divide. Vocational, specialised lines of learning will include A-levels and GCSEs when relevant, and practical subjects taught in practical ways, so that children can learn in a way that motivates them. They will provide qualifications with genuine currency that employers and universities respect, just as A-levels and GCSEs are currently respected. If qualifications are genuinely recognised and valued in their own right, because we value skilled technicians, software designers and engineers, that is the way to achieve parity of esteem.
The hon. Gentleman referred to my use of the word "disaffected". He misunderstood my proposals. There will be a new route for people who are at risk of dropping out. It goes way beyond the Tomlinson recommendations. We propose a new route for those who, at 14, are at risk of disengaging from the system. It is based on our current entry to employment route for over-16s. That will be extended to 14 to 16-year-olds so that they can spend up to two days a week learning in the workplace as well as the classroom. They can then come back to learning after doing their level 1 or level 2 diploma. That is a radical departure from the current system, and it will extend genuine benefits to all our pupils.
Ruth Kelly: The thrust of my proposals is that students should learn skills on which they can build and progress in work as well as school so that the qualifications that they gain in school will lead to progression later in life. I have outlined a radical set of proposals.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): The statement is much better than many of us anticipated until a short time ago. My right hon. Friend knows that many of us would have preferred Tomlinson, the whole Tomlinson and nothing but Tomlinson, but we are all realists, and there is much of Tomlinson in her proposals.
Let me clear up a minor point. Tomlinson never advocated the abolition of GCSEs and A-levels as a requirement for introducing a diploma. Page 33 of the report specifically states that GCSEs and A-levels are compatible with a radical change.
My right hon. Friend knows that most of us hold dear the prospect of sorting out the academic and vocational divide once and for all. Much in the statement deals with that. I disagree with her about one thing. There is a
23 Feb 2005 : Column 320
consensus that I have not previously experienced on the need to sort out the 14 to 19 situation, and we have a unique opportunity to do that. I therefore hope that she will listen to comments about the White Paper and ensure that we get it absolutely right and thus challenge the aspirations and future of our young people.
Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee. I know that he takes a great interest in these matters and that he has followed the subject closely. He is right that a consensus exists, but I do not think that it is about the abolition of A-levels or GCSEs or the way in which we meet objectives. The consensus is that we need to do more to tackle the basics and ensure that every child is literate and numerate on leaving school. There is also a consensus that we need to do more to stretch our most able students and to transform radically the nature of vocational opportunities for our students. I believe that the package that I proposed fulfils those tests.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton) (Con): I welcome the wider encouragement of literacy and numeracy and working with employers that the White Paper proposes. However, I am especially concerned about the decline in the number of A-level students who take individual science subjects. What does the White Paper do to encourage that? What does it propose to stimulate people beyond the age of 13 and subsequently beyond the age of GCSEs to take those subjects and go on to university? Has the Secretary of State considered, for example, increasing the weighting of individual science subjects in university applications?
Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of science and of ensuring that we have enough students who are motivated and inspired by the science curriculum and want to study science, not only for GCSE but for A-level and at university. He knows that our proposals to maintain compulsory science at key stage 4 will be introduced in 2006. They will create a platform on which to make the science curriculum more inspiring, as the Roberts review proposed. I firmly expect at least 80 per cent. of students to study the equivalent of two science subjects at GCSE, and more to go on to study science at A-level.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we have a platform on which to invest for the future and deliver enough scientists both to employment and to our university system.
Helen Southworth (Warrington, South) (Lab): Great Sankey high school in my constituency, a specialist engineering college, and the employers and trade unions working with it, are keen to see a focus on engineering. Will my right hon. Friend work with universities to ensure that they recognise the importance of the subject? We need students at every level to contribute to our society and community, so that we can really succeed in engineering.
Ruth Kelly:
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of engineering. One specialised route will indeed lead to an engineering diploma. I think that if we get the content right by working with universities and employers, we—or they—can design courses that
23 Feb 2005 : Column 321
will stretch our most able engineering students and provide them with direct routes to our top universities. It will be a test of our reforms: can we really create qualifications that combine conceptual with practical learning, and are recognised and respected by employers and the university system?
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): What should Bracknell and Wokingham further education college do about its great difficulty in recruiting people to teach electricians and plumbers, given the current salary and funding levels? We have people who want to train as electricians and plumbers; we have colleges that want to give them places. What are the Government going to do about the problem of recruiting the teachers?
Ruth Kelly: Delivering that agenda will pose a challenge to all our institutions: schools, employers, the FE sector, local authorities and learning and skills councils. I do not deny that for a moment. It also gives the FE sector a huge opportunity to build on its current strengths and its excellent record of delivering vocational skills, but the sector must nevertheless rise to that challenge—which is one reason why we commissioned Sir Andrew Foster to undertake a thorough review to ensure that the sector is fit for the purpose of delivering such an exciting agenda.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |