| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Leigh: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. I know the philosophy that he agrees with. I apologise to him; I do not agree. The evidence from all over the world—from Sweden, Denmark, Chile, America and many other countries—
Paul Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): What about Finland?
Mr. Leigh: —apart from Finland, which is a small country of 5 million people with no large urban areas. From all over the world, the message is that competition and choice work.
The particular problem that I have with the Bill, as my colleagues know, is with regard to faith schools, particularly the ban on interviews. I know that many Labour Members in particular do not like the idea that schools have the right to interview parents. I know that it is said that that is just a small problem now.
Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Leigh: No, I cannot give way again. I apologise.
I know that only a small number of schools interview, but up to the imposition of the code of practice, 80 per cent. of Catholic schools in London used to interview. There is a very good reason for that. Surely it is not fair on Catholic priests, Anglican priests or anybody else that they should become spiritual policemen. We all know what happens in some of the oversubscribed schools. People turn up to churches and try to make themselves known to the parish priest. The parish priest has to sign the chit, having no idea who they are. Is it right that the onus should be put on the priest? Much better that it should be on the school.
I am rather sad that the Secretary of State, who understands Catholic education and involves herself in it, should have been party to a mean little device to ban the small number of schools that interview from interviewing. It is said, I know, that those schools interview because they want to cherry-pick middle class parents.
Paul Holmes: They are just trying to select.
Mr. Leigh: Maybe those schools want to protect their ethos. Up to a few years ago, they could interview on the basis of the general ethos of the school. What is wrong with a school wanting to protect its ethos? What is wrong with giving a Catholic school or a Jewish, Muslim or Anglican school a chance to protect its ethos?
I heard a sotto voce intervention suggesting that the schools were just trying to select. That is not true.
Mr. Leigh: It is not true. I speak from personal experience. The London Oratory, the Cardinal Vaughan—
Paul Holmes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Leigh:
I cannot give way again because of the time limit, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. He should
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1520
look carefully at the schools, as I do. The fact is that they band: 30 per cent. the most able, 30 per cent. the middle, and 30 per cent. the least able. They are genuine comprehensives. People may not like them for other reasons, but they are trying to protect their ethos, whether Catholic or Anglican. Why should they not be allowed to do so? Why should the Secretary of State take this great sledgehammer to crack this tiny nut, especially when there are schools in inner London that, unlike many schools, are attracting parents from every social stratum? The Labour party should be in favour of that. It should want state schools to attract middle-class parents. It should not want ghetto neighbourhood comprehensives that middle-class people do not want to go to. Why are the Government trying to change the ethos of the very schools that are successful in difficult areas and are achieving what the Government want; that is, a social mix? I feel strongly about that.
I also feel strongly about the role of the adjudicator. I talked to the Catholic Education Service about this last night. It is extremely worried because the adjudicator will be given untrammelled new powers. I have talked widely about this to headmasters and other people. At the moment, the adjudicator can step in and interfere in the admission criteria for that year only. Under the Bill, the adjudicator can step in and make indefinite changes. It is a huge extension of the power of the adjudicator and the Secretary of State. We should be worried about that.
Some of us are also worried about the role of school improvement partners—SIPs—appointed by local authorities. They will be able to range widely over schools and interfere. They will be a sort of commissar from the LEA. Why are they in the Bill? The ban on interviews, the role of the school adjudicator and school improvement partners are all something to be worried about.
What would I hope for from a Bill such as this? What would I hope that the next Conservative Government would produce? I believe in a Government creating independent state schools. That is the way forward. There is no reason why we should not achieve that.
Why do we have so little trust in head teachers? Why do we assume that if we give them power over selection, hiring and firing or excluding we will somehow create a load of new grammar schools, God forbid? There are only 165 grammar schools in the country, but 3,500 schools. If we gave powers to head teachers to do as they know best and to run their schools in the way that they believe in, there would not be radical change. Of course, there would be incremental change, and gradually some schools might become more selective, but maybe not. In the independent sector, there are schools that are selective and schools that are not. There are schools that cater for every whim. I cannot understand why, when we have this great opportunity, at the same time that we are creating new trust schools we are loading more control over them. There used to be a cry, "Trust the people." I say, "Trust the schools." I say to my hon. Friends that when they vote for the Bill tonight, they should amend it to ensure that we get the real freedom that the Conservative party believes in.
4.18 pm
Martin Linton (Battersea) (Lab):
I welcome the changes that have been made between the White Paper and the Bill, particularly those to the admissions code.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1521
In Wandsworth, there are a lot of partially selective schools, so I am thankful for the ban on the expansion of such schools. There was an anomaly in the Education Act 1998 that allowed adjudicators to increase as well as decrease the level of selection where it has been decreased since 1998. I see Committee stage as an opportunity to close that loophole.
Trust schools seem to be the most controversial part of the Bill. I take them very seriously. Last month, some colleagues and I went to Sweden to look at one of the models for trust schools used by the White Paper team, to see for ourselves and reach our own conclusions. No doubt, we have reached different conclusions, but we have done so on the evidence of our own eyes. Sweden has schools that are fully funded by local authorities. They get the same funding per pupil as local authority schools and are not allowed to charge fees. They are not allowed to select in any shape or form, but they are independently owned. Some are parents' co-ops, some are Montessori-type schools, some are Church schools, but about half of them are owned by businesses. That would be precluded by this legislation.
When those schools were set up 15 years ago, they had three aims: to widen choice, to raise standards and to reduce costs. I shall briefly set out their experience. They have widened choice, mainly by introducing new teaching methods in their curriculum—not only Montessori but many others—which have spread out to local authority schools, too. Some of the schools introduced new specialisms that are also spreading to the local authority sector. Some use personalised timetables and personalised level groups, whereby children are taught not in year groups but according to the level they have reached in a subject; for example, a student could be in year 3 for English and year 6 for mathematics. Those new methods are spreading throughout the system, so there has been some widening of choice.
Raising standards is a key aim. The schools obtain higher grades than local authority schools, but that is not surprising as, on average, they are more likely to be in higher income areas. They also have higher added value, which research has shown fairly conclusively. The key question is whether they have had any effect on the rest of the school sector. It was said earlier that there was no evidence, but in Sweden there certainly is evidence that the existence of those free schools—only 8 per cent. of the total—has raised standards in local authority schools. The evidence is not wholly conclusive; there have been four studies, not all of which reached a statistically significant conclusion, but those that did so show that the rest of the system has improved. That is mainly because the free schools are more likely to be innovative, which acts as a spur to innovation change in the local authority sector, where schools are changing in directions pioneered by the independent schools.
In terms of reducing costs, the schools have been a complete failure. At first, in some areas, they succeeded in reducing costs, but the costs have now increased. Local authority schools have had to raise their game to compete with the nearest independent school and have had to carry a fair amount of overcapacity to make choice a reality. What some people considered a way of reducing costs has turned out to be more expensive, which causes planning difficulties for local authorities.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1522
They do not know how many children will be enrolled in their schools in August or September because the independent schools are in the market, too. Overcapacity may be the price we have to pay for real choice.
The independent schools make up 8 per cent. of the total and only 4 per cent. of them are business-owned, so it would not be right to make grand claims on their behalf. However, we have to face the possibility that the existence of even a small independent sector may be a spur to improvement throughout the system. I have no brief for private providers in public services. In my ideal world, the public sector would provide all public services, but we have to be prepared to look at the evidence.
Until 1999, only 4 per cent. of students at a school in my constituency were gaining A to C grades at GCSE—the sixth lowest in the country. No school in Liverpool, Manchester or Sheffield had such bad results. The school has now been turned around and the number is up to 30 per cent., which is a great achievement, but 70 per cent. of students still fail to achieve the basic A to C grades. If we are failing 70 per cent. of our children, and there is any chance that an innovation could raise the quality and standard of education for low income people, there is nothing I would not do to achieve it.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |