| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Meg Hillier (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op): Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, compared with the factors that he is describing, there is a greater correlation between class and poverty and education and attainment? Does the Bill not begin to address such inequalities, which are creating the divides that he mentions?
Mr. Maples: I wish that I thought that that was true; however, the hon. Lady is absolutely right to mention this issue. Very bright children in constituencies such as mine whose parents can afford to send them to independent schools will be all right; it is the bright working class kids whom the hon. Lady is concerned about who are getting left behind. This Bill goes nowhere near far enough; indeed, it is not designed to address that issue. Diversity might produce better results in some cases, but it is unlikely to do so.
We have got to accept that different children need slightly different forms of education. I am open to persuasion on whether such a division should be made at 11, 14 or 16, or whether it can be made within the same school. I would love to believe that bog-standard comprehensives, or the new ones in which the Bill will result, can deal with this problem, but I suspect that they cannot. We cannot pretend that we can give everyone
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1506
the same education, because that simply will not work. In the school to which I referred earlier—it is in Lewisham—where 10 per cent. of children get 5 GCSEs at grades A to C, the child who does their homework, is interested in work and listens during lessons is a freak. The whole culture of the school is against such children, and it is they who are suffering.
Linda Gilroy : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maples: No. I am not particularly arguing for the creation of new grammar schools, because there may be other solutions, but if I were I would not locate them in constituencies such as mine; I would put them in constituencies such as the inner-city one that I used to represent.
Linda Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maples: No, I am in the middle of making a point. That way, bright children from poor backgrounds who are currently being let down would have a school with the critical mass to enable them to aspire to achieve their potential. It is not constituencies such as mine that have this problem; it is those that many Labour Members represent.
I do not understand why "no selection" has become such an ideological sacred cow. Life is full of selection. We believe in selection for musical aptitude at school, and in ruthless selection for school sports teams. At age 18, we have one of the most ruthless education cut-offs and transitions that one could dream of, so I do not buy the idea that there should be no differentiation between pupils and their educational needs.
I am not sure what the solution is, but perhaps the Minister will address this point when she winds up. What about the very bright kids, whom I worry are being let down by the current system? At some point, the sacred cow of "no selection" will come into contact with the altar of progress, and we will have to accept that bright kids need a different kind of education from most others if they are to achieve their potential, if the economy is to benefit from their skills and abilities, and if our society as a whole is to get the most able people into the jobs that we need them to do.
3.25 pm
Mr. Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South) (Lab): Like other speakers, when I read the White Paper I was profoundly depressed. The expression that came to mind then was one that I had often used when I witnessed in opposition the attempts of the Conservative Government to divide and dismantle our education system. I used to say that they were creating an educational archipelago. We all know what can happen in archipelagos. People can lose their way, and those who find a better island in their travels can be sure that it has already been occupied. Of course, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" showed us, people can lose their life opportunities if they lose their way and are stranded in an archipelago. I need not develop the image further, which can apply to a divided education system.
However, I am much encouraged by the Bill before us. I am encouraged by the tightening of the provisions on admissions, by the proposals for 14 to 19-year-olds in
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1507
part 5, and particularly by clause 149, which we could call the "Knowsley model". That model was pioneered in Knowsley and we are proud to have made that contribution to the development of education policy. I am also encouraged by clause 17, which looks promising and deals with another area in which Knowsley has been in the vanguard of delivering the Government's policies. It is certainly in tune with "Every Child Matters".
On co-operation between schools and the sharing and dissemination of good practice, we in Knowsley have a philosophy and policy of corporate entrepreneurship. It works well, and there is a commonality between politicians, administrators, head teachers and teachers. All are concerned that this philosophy should not be undermined by the intrusion of the individual entrepreneurship of school trusts—a danger intrinsic in this Bill but, I hope, one that can be avoided. Rather than a rigid model based on individual schools, we want trusts to be developed in a local context, not spanning local authority boundaries, but perhaps including several schools being federated in trusts. Such co-operation is the spirit, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, of the "Every Child Matters" agenda—a spirit that consciously aligns with other Bills before the House on child care and vulnerable children.
The agenda that we in Knowsley espouse is an holistic one. It is no accident that the title of "director of education" in Knowsley has been replaced by "director of children's services", thereby indicating this systemic, inclusive, corporate and holistic agenda. I seek assurance from the Government that that agenda will be allowed to prosper once the Bill is enacted. I am encouraged by earlier remarks by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, both in the House and outside, that that might be the case and that there is the possibility of a strengthened role for the local authority—certainly more strengthened than I feared after reading the White Paper. I am also encouraged by my right hon. Friend's assurances that there will be close discussion in Committee in an effort to improve the Bill, including the criteria to enable successful local authorities to perform that appropriately strengthened role. I agree that one size should not necessarily fit all, and that applies to local authorities as well as to schools. I am optimistic that the Government now recognise that.
Clauses 7 and 9 will allow local authorities to propose new community or community special schools, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. As the clauses stand, it appears that my right hon. Friend still feels unable to trust local authorities to run schools, even if they have a track record of success. Knowsley has established its credentials, demonstrated by its early selection for funding support for the building schools for the future programme, a system-wide reform in a local authority context. At the end of this month, all Knowsley secondary schools will be closed and replaced with eight learning centres—the name reflects the holistic, inclusive ethos that I have already mentioned. The Bill, if appropriately framed, will provide a perfect opportunity for us in Knowsley to maximise the
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1508
implementation of federated trusts—indeed, in a local authority the size of Knowsley, possibly one federated Knowsley trust.
I make no apology for putting my remarks in the context of my home borough, which I am proud to represent. I have devoted more than half of my adult life to the education service in Knowsley and I want to see it improved, not damaged. I am optimistic that we can work with the Government to achieve that.
Other local authorities are thinking along similar lines to Knowsley. In some cases, they are even taking leads from Knowsley. I put it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that when the detail of the Bill is considered in Committee she should not lose sight of the guiding principles, which I have mentioned several times, of inclusion, holism—I do not mind "isms"—and corporate enterprise. In Knowsley, we believe in sharing our problems and our opportunities. I usually manage to quote one of the Latin poets in my speeches, so I shall finish with a quotation from Horace, who said:
If the person next door's party wall is on fire, it is your problem too.
3.33 pm
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Knowsley South (Mr. O'Hara). On balance, I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends are doing the right thing in giving the Bill a Second Reading. It contains principles that Conservatives can support, although the Government have clearly gone to some trouble to try to disguise them. There are other elements about which I am less enthusiastic, and I hope that plenty of time for debate will be available in Committee. That seems to be the will of Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman argued for more time in Committee, as did the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). Indeed, the Secretary of State conceded that we needed to spend more time in Committee on the criteria according to which local education authorities can promote new community schools.
This is not only a Labour debate and it is not only the Labour party that is having an internal debate to try to perfect the Bill. We want to have our say, as do other parties. We all care very much about making the Bill as good as possible. It would be difficult for us to oppose a Bill that sets out to promote Conservative themes, which we have supported for such a long time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) so ably pointed out in his opening speech, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), drawing on his experience as Secretary of State. Indeed, when he described how the White Paper chimes with previous Conservative thinking, the Secretary of State did not look as comfortable as she might have done. At one point, when my right hon. and learned Friend was quoting from the Government's White Paper, she had the sort of expression one would have when some dreadful family secret was about to be unearthed.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1509
How could we oppose a White Paper and a Bill that set out Conservative themes such as diversity and choice in schools? Clause 2 is entitled:
It will place local education authorities under a duty to promote diversity and choice in the provision of schools. In 1992, the Conservative Government produced a White Paper entitled "Choice and Diversity". The Government speak of diversity and choice, but the underlying themes are the same.
The 1992 White Paper identified five great themes in Conservative education policy—quality, diversity, parental choice, greater school autonomy and greater accountability. Those five themes ran through the Secretary of State's speech today. Labour Members may not have been comfortable with that, but I felt comfortable when I heard her talk about those themes—if not some of her other themes. [Interruption.] If the Minister demurs from any one of those five themes, I would be interested to hear from him.
The problem is that I am not yet convinced that the Bill will make the difference that I would like to see it make to the education of our children, especially those who live in the most difficult areas and attend the most testing schools. Will we see the broad, across the board progress that parents are crying out for, especially in secondary education in the difficult areas? Ministers tell us that progress is being made in secondary education. Every week, they pray in aid—the Prime Minister did so today—the increasing number of good grades at GCSE and A-level. Grades have been improving, as they were before 1997. However, the conclusion that because grades have been improving over a long time standards are rising depends on the heroic assumption that standards are as high at GCSE and A-level as they were in the past. That is not an assumption that everybody finds it easy to make. It may not be comfortable for any of us to say that, but it is not a unanimous assumption—[Interruption.] Well, I shall ask the Minister directly. Does he believe that standards, in the curriculum and the results, are as high today as they were 20 or 30 years ago?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |