Examination of Witness (Questions 80-99)
1 DECEMBER 2004
RT HON
CHARLES CLARKE
MP
Q80 Mr Gibb: We shall see the results
anyway on the internet. We shall be able to have a look at them.
Mr Clarke: Yes.
Q81 Mr Gibb: Are they good results?
Mr Clarke: It would be wrong for
me to pre-state what is going to be published. I cannot remember
when they are going to be published. I think at the end of the
year; maybe the beginning of next year. They will be available
and you will be able to make a judgment on them.
Q82 Mr Gibb: You do not know whether
they are good or bad.
Mr Clarke: I do not have the data
in front of me; no, I do not.
Q83 Mr Gibb: Okay. We can judge them
when they come out. The suspicion is that this particular PISA
is about maths results and a lot of the results are not good and
the reason why the Government, or whoever it is in the department,
ONS or DfES, did not press for these figures to be included was
that they were not good, that if they had been included we would
have been quite low down in the table, as we are low down in the
table in the TIMSS study.
Mr Clarke: With respect, you have
the wrong end of the stick. As you correctly said earlier, the
data will be published and so everybody will be able to make their
assessment and judgment on that basis. It is the OECD which decides
what the statistical criteria are for what goes in and what goes
out. I have been of the view the whole time on all surveys that
it is not for me to press the Office of National Statistics or
the OECD or whatever to bend their rules in some particular regard.
I very much regret what the situation is, but if the allegation
is that we somehow were aware of a poor result and therefore tried
to pressurise or not to pressurise the OECD to publish the data
in that way, I reject it entirely. We will publish the data we
have, but it does not fit the formula which the OECD has for the
reasons you have correctly identified.
Q84 Mr Gibb: Neither did we fulfil it
in 2000 when it was only 61% response rate, yet those figures
were included in the OECD results because, perhaps, they happened
to be good.
Mr Clarke: Conspiracy theorists
abound, not least in the world of educational statistics, but
I am not one of them.
Q85 Chairman: Although it is a failing
and you have admitted it is a failing, but I do not suppose anybody
is going to resign as ever.
Mr Clarke: That is the cynicism
of parliamentarians. Yes, I have admitted it is a failure, but
as I said to you before, when you asked me to resign on various
different occasions—
Q86 Chairman: I have never asked you
to resign.
Mr Clarke: —I firstly seek
to be judged across a wide range of performance indicators in
a number of areas and I hope there will be a general election
soon.
Q87 Chairman: May I put it on the record
that I cannot remember asking you to resign? I just sometimes
cynically want someone to be demoted in the department or moved
away because of their failure to deliver.
Mr Clarke: My memory may be at
fault, but it is not a serious point. I recall being asked whether
I would resign if we did not fulfil a certain performance indicator
in a certain area—I cannot remember which it was.
Q88 Chairman: That is very different.
Mr Clarke: I gave an answer saying
I would seek to be judged right across the range of my responsibilities.
Q89 Mr Jackson: These international comparator
studies are really of great importance because they are a kind
of way of breaking into the secret garden and it is terribly important
that they should be carried out. I wonder whether the Secretary
of State could just complete this discussion by telling us what
steps he is going to take to ensure that we are in a position
to meet these OECD criteria for full participation in all these
exercises in the future?
Mr Clarke: I have asked for a
detailed submission from my officials to answer precisely that
question. I believe that I will be able to satisfy the Committee
that we will be able to meet those properly in the future in the
way you indicate. If you want me at some point as a Committee
to produce data for you on how we are approaching these matters,
I should be happy to do so[5]In
principle I completely accept the point you make that these international
comparisons are a very important vehicle for change. I had a meeting
with the ministers of education in the German Länder in this
country the other day and the German debate has been utterly transformed
by the PISA figures and them asking serious questions about what
they are doing and how they are doing it. I accept therefore the
importance that you indicate and I am taking steps to ensure we
do not fail again.
Chairman: I am afraid we must move on.
We want to look at choice and particularly admissions arrangements,
on which we spent a lot of time.
Q90 Paul Holmes: In our report on admissions
we said—and I paraphrase slightly—that admissions
were in a bit of a confused mess and that because most of it was
down to voluntary ways of operating there was no way of ensuring
that all schools played their fair role in the admissions policy,
for example giving looked-after children priority in admissions.
That was an aspiration but there was no way of making sure that
all schools played their part in that; and the same would apply
to children who were ESN, to children with free school meals,
etcetera. In your response to the Committee and in the five-year
strategy you still seem to be saying essentially that although
you would try to improve the guidance to schools and LEAs and
LEAs will have a strategic role and so forth, there is no statutory
obligation on schools to take part in this.
Mr Clarke: I do not entirely accept
that. I did think it was a very helpful report from the Committee
and I noted that there were one or two aspects where you felt
that we did not respond as fully as you wanted. In terms of the
central thrust of what you are saying, which is to increase the
authority, standing and the support for the statutory code of
admissions, I think we have accepted a lot of what you said to
go down that course. You then ask at the end of the day about
the legal power issue as to where we go. I remain of the view
that for schools to work collaboratively is a far better way to
proceed in this area than by edict. Going back to the "barons"
point, it is possible in those circumstances that somebody will
stand out, but I believe that the powers we take by the various
measures I set out in answer to your report, plus the single conversation
which we set out in the five-year strategy, give us real power
and sanctions to address the matter without going as far as giving
lots more resources to the lawyers to fight these cases in that
way. I was in a school in Norfolk on Friday where literally the
first preference that it gives in its selection is to looked-after
children; in fact not being taken up anything like as much as
it should be. I think these issues can be resolved by that
co-operative, collaborative, voluntarist approach more effectively
than by recourse to the courts.
Q91 Paul Holmes: When the Committee were
in Wakefield taking evidence on this some of the schools there
were talking about the collaborative approach they were trying
to develop. However, two of the heads of struggling inner city
schools with a very transient population, lots of families who
were coming because the father, for example, was in gaol and they
were going to be there for a few months or year and moving through,
not an ideal school population in many ways. They were saying
that they just end up with these because there are other schools
in the area which are not going to play their part in finding
places for these children.
Mr Clarke: That is why I made
the announcement I did last week to the new heads' conference,
saying that hard-to-educate children should be shared equally
between schools in a particular area, for which I have had a lot
of political criticism from others who are saying somehow I am
trying to damage good schools. Actually that is completely not
the case. I do think it is saying that these responsibilities
should be shared by all schools in a locality and that is exactly
the direction we should be going.
Q92 Paul Holmes: Is "should be"
statutory or is it an expression of good intent? A school which
is popular and over-subscribed is going to say, as they did in
all my experience in teaching, that they cannot take them, they
are full and somebody else will have to have them.
Mr Clarke: Again, with respect
to you, the landscape has moved forward on this since the time
you were a teacher, in the time you have been a member of parliament.
I do not mean this in a funny way, but the fact is that the operation
of the code of admissions, the role of the adjudicator, all the
various questions which arise in this area have changed the landscape
in a lot of these conversations. There is a big issue here about
how we try to bring about change in the direction which I think
probably we would both agree is the right way to go. My take is
that the best way to do it is by us strengthening the code, as
the Committee recommended, giving better guidance, developing
the role of the adjudicator in the way we have set out, trying
to move forward on a co-operative and collaborative basis. That
is a more effective and more lasting way of achieving the kinds
of changes which we are looking for than giving the secondary
head in Wakefield whom you describe the right to take the next-door
school to court. The idea that the law helps resolve these questions
is a very dubious means of getting change in this area.
Q93 Paul Holmes: I am sure we share the
same intention, but it is only three and a half years since I
was a teacher and we were taking evidence on this only last year
in various areas around England, so it is fairly up-to-date research.
One question on one other area: selection by ability. Famously
the Opposition spokesman on education before 1997 said "Read
my lips: no selection by ability". The five-year strategy
more recently is saying "We will not allow any extension
of selection by ability which denies parents the right to choose".
After 1997, the amount of selection by ability in grammar schools
doubled in this country. Are you now saying in the five-year strategy
that you will not allow any extension of selection by ability
fullstop? Or is the bit you add on "which denies parents
the right to choose" a get-out which still allows extension
of selection by ability.
Mr Clarke: No, it is not a get-out.
We took a decision, for which we can be criticised in 1998, that
the approach we would take to stop the extension of selection
by ability, but not to go down the course of trying to reduce
it very substantially by, for example, abolishing grammar schools
in a particular area or whatever it might be, was a political
decision which the Government took and which I think was the right
decision and we have essentially stuck to that position throughout.
Some people argue that we should move that line, for example by
legislating to abolish all grammar schools, or other people say
that we should extend grammar schools. Conservatives say we should
do that. I do not think either course is right; I think the course
of saying no extension plus a series of relatively small—I
hate to say the word—Fabian changes which means that you
have less selection by ability, is quite important. The small
change we do, for example, on the criteria for specialist schools,
which you are familiar with, or the new piece of secondary legislation
which we published a year or so ago on the role of the interview
in the selection process, are all small steps which I think add
up to the "no extension of selection by ability" point
and make schools work within a more co-operative framework. I
think that is the right course for us to follow.
Q94 Paul Holmes: In terms of backdoor
selection by ability through interviews or structured discussions
or whatever they are called to avoid calling them interviews,
how firm a line will you take against that in the future?
Mr Clarke: We have; we have passed
legislation on the matter. The legislation has been passed and
there have even been schools which have contested the legislation
which we have carried through. We have said that you cannot operate
interviews and, by the way, with the full agreement of the churches
who are the people most exercised about this and getting to a
state of affairs where we could carry it through. There are some
schools and heads who do not like that and they have taken that
on, but we have changed it already in that way.
Q95 Paul Holmes: Is there no loophole
for schools to say they have taken into account the various criteria
but they are choosing to go down this route? The London Oratory
School is in the High Court at the moment trying to defend its
right to select by interview.
Mr Clarke: You are making my point.
Peterborough primary school is contesting the London Oratory and
there is an adjudicator's decision and a decision by myself—I
am not briefed on this particular point, I am speaking from memory.
My understanding is that the Oratory has not changed my determination
in the area but it has challenged and is seeking to challenge
in the courts the adjudicator's decision. That is their right.
The fact is that is what they are doing. The law exists. I do
not know what the outcome of the court hearing will be but we
shall see what happens. I am sure the adjudicator felt that her
judgment was well made in that process but you are illustrating
the fact that we have changed the law in a way which causes the
Oratory to go to court. You are also illustrating my point that
resolving all these matters in the courts is not the brightest
way of doing things. We should be trying to operate in a relatively
collaborative way as we make change.
Q96 Paul Holmes: The CTCs are still outside
the system due to a peculiarity of the law. When all the new independent
foundation schools start opting out will they be in or outside
the system? Will the academies be in or outside the system?
Mr Clarke: Both inside. There
are four CTCs which are outside at the moment out of 4,000 schools,
not exactly a major issue except for those who enjoy discussing
these things. The answer is that the independent specialist
schools, the foundation schools, the academies are all part of
this admissions code structure, the structure we have, and they
have to abide by that.
Q97 Chairman: Coming back to the important
point you made when you said it was controversial that every school
should have their share of more difficult looked-after children,
is it more hope and aspiration? You are not really saying that
you are going to flex your muscles and make it happen, are you?
Mr Clarke: Of course; that is
what I said the other day and that is the situation. The only
thing I regret about the remarks I made the other day is that
I did not give sufficient attention to a very important part of
the whole strategy that we have, which is to develop more provision,
for example in pupil referral units and other forms of educational
support. We have already doubled that since 1997 very substantially.
It is important that heads should have the ability to deal with
children in these positions in a way which is separate from the
rest of the children if they need to do that. That is what the
pupil referral units have been doing well, where they exist. We
do need to extend that and take that forward. I believe the best
people to do that are groups of schools working together and looking
at how to do it. The basis of what happens, sharing out equally
is what is needed and certainly that is what I intend.
Q98 Helen Jones: I understand what you
say about trying to get co-operation between schools on admissions.
We were particularly concerned when we took evidence at the fact
that, because an objection has to be made to the admissions arrangements
before the adjudicator can come in, objections are not always
being brought when they should be and particularly where the admission
of looked-after children is concerned because there is not the
political pressure for authorities to object in that situation.
What would you say to the view that the code should have statutory
force at least where looked-after children are concerned? If we
believe that the education of those children has been a scandal
in this country for many years, as many of us do, ought we not
to legislate to ensure that it improves rather than simply leaving
it to chance, depending on what area of the country you happen
to be in?
Mr Clarke: This is a very important
issue and I agree with you that the education, in fact the whole
upbringing, of looked-after children, is one of the greatest scandals
there has been. I agree with you completely about that. The question,
however, is: what is the best path to solve it? I argue, and we
have achieved this in the PSA targets which we have through this
comprehensive spending review period, that the absolutely key
target is the stability and the life of the looked-after child
in an environment which promotes their educational improvement.
That is what we have. That requires a major difference in approach
to what there has been. The fact is that many looked-after children
change schools as often as three or four times a year and in those
circumstances to say that a particular school will solve that
problem is wrong; I do not think they will. Getting stability
for the child is absolutely the core of achieving what you and
I agree is the key area we have to move. The other part of my
remit in terms of children, social services and so on, is that
we are working very, very hard on precisely that. The statistical
releases which have either just been published or are about to
be published indicate the work which still has to be done in this
area to take it further forward. We have 60,000 looked-after children
in the country. I regard the key thing for us to focus on is getting
a stable upbringing for those looked-after children and education
is a part of that. What happens at the moment is that really large
numbers are whizzing round the system looking for a place. I do
not say it is a formalistic decision; it is not. Actually it is
not the admission to the school which is the key thing; it is
getting them some base in life to be able to take it forward.
I agree with you that if it were proved to me that schools were
not actually accepting looked-after children in the way they were,
then I would consider looking at the statutory position. I do
not really think that is what it is. I think it is the way in
which looked-after children are looked after which is at the core
of the problem.
Q99 Helen Jones: We did have some evidence
to show that schools were not giving looked-after children priority
and objections were not being made to it. We are very concerned
about that.
Mr Clarke: The real problem was
the "full" schools which tend to be the more successful
schools. When you have an in-year application the looked-after
children end up in the schools which are less successful, because
they had places. That is the core issue in the whole approach.
I come back to the point that what is crucial to get to is a position
where there is stability for the looked-after child. In those
circumstances schools will accept the looked-after children right
across the range. My statement on this is about all schools taking
responsibility for this equally. There is a lot of debate about
this which is wrongly focused. I have had a lot of discussions
with voluntary organisations on this which say the key issue is
the school. I think the key issue is the setting in which the
child is looked after and getting that right ought to be educationally
supported and carried through.
5 Note: See (SE 4). Back
| 
