| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Blackman-Woods: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the interesting findings on our trip to Sweden was that politicians who had previously been against the independent or trust schools now support them? Because the schools had raised standards overall and brought about innovation, those politicians do not want to go back to the previous system.
Martin Linton: That is right. There is no doubt that those schools are still controversial within the Social Democratic party, where many people are against them but more are in favour. We asked many Social Democratic MPs whether they would oppose free schools if they had their time again, and every one of them said that they would still support them. Although the research is not conclusive and everyone is not of the same mind, the evidence indicates that those schools are doing a good job.
We should all search our consciences before we vote against anything that might improve education for working-class children in this country. The middle classes always get choice—if they are not given a choice of schools, they can choose where to live, which means the same thing. We must accept that low-income people are the only group who are denied the benefits of choice and diversity, which is one of the reasons why I welcome the extension of free transport in the Bill. Many people in my constituency are trapped in a situation in which their children qualify for only low-performing schools, but that provision may enable them to spread their nets more widely. I also welcome the introduction of choice advisers, who will help people in inner cities, where it almost impossible to choose a high-performing school.
I am not certain whether trust schools will improve things, but I hope that they do, and I therefore welcome their introduction, which is at least a positive attempt to improve the situation. I cannot prove whether the Bill will extend to low-income families the benefits that
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1523
middle-class families already enjoy, but it is clearly an honest attempt to achieve that objective, and I am confident that it is a move in that direction.
4.26 pm
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): I have found the debate a bit bewildering: the Secretary of State has taunted Conservative Members with the reasons why Conservative Members should not vote for the Bill; Labour Back Benchers have tormented Liberal Democrat Members on why Liberal Democrat Members will not vote for it; and the local paper in Northern Ireland reports that Labour Whips are "irritated" that we might vote for it.
We will vote for the Bill, even if Labour Whips stand at the Door of the Lobby and try to shoo us away, because we believe that the Bill is an important building block in improving educational provision for people in England. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has pointed out that on a Bill such as this, where it is possible to achieve consensus, we should seek consensus across the party-political divide. It is disappointing that the Labour party has adopted a Sinn Fein approach—ourselves alone, with no one else supporting the changes. [Hon. Members: "No surrender!"] Absolutely.
We will support the Bill despite some of the concessions, which were unnecessary and are probably detrimental. When the Secretary of State introduced the White Paper, she made it clear that it was "the next essential step" in changing the education system for the better. Over the past weeks and months, however, we have seen her toss changes out of the front door, the back door, down the trap door and through the green door in the face of the baying old Labour rebels. Despite those concessions, the Bill contains enough to warrant our support.
The Government are seeking to remove from schools in Northern Ireland what they are proposing for schools in England. In Northern Ireland, against the wishes not of a few party rebels, but of two thirds of the population and an overwhelming proportion of parents and teachers, the Government are seeking to impose a one-size-fits-all comprehensive system. Despite the fact that the Government are denying to the people of Northern Ireland what we want for them, we are prepared to support a Bill that will at least move towards it in England.
The Bill is important because children deserve better than what they are getting at present. I recognise that the Government have spent considerably more money on education over the past few years. A 45 per cent. real increase in the budget is to be welcomed. However, it is not funding alone that creates change. I do not want to repeat the statistics that we hear bandied backwards and forwards between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at Question Time about what is happening to schools. We all know the statistics about the number of children who are being taught in failing schools and so on. Funding is not the only answer—there must be structural change. I believe that the structural changes in the Bill go towards tackling the mental block among the UK public that one cannot
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1524
have a good education system unless it is solely provided by the state. We need diversity and we sometimes need to lift the deadening hand of local authorities from education provision.
Several of the measures in the Bill are welcome. Giving children greater freedom to travel will help to improve social mobility. Allowing bad schools to shrink and good schools to expand will improve efficiency and provide incentives for change. Permitting schools to apply for trust status will bring greater expertise and resources—not just money, but other resources—into the system. Encouraging schools to have that autonomy will give good leaders the opportunity to make the changes that they know are needed to improve the situation in their own local area. The enhanced disciplinary powers for teachers are welcome, given that 41 per cent. of parents indicated in a recent survey that they are concerned about school discipline.
I regret that the Minister still has a blind prejudice against academic selection, which is a cornerstone of matching pupils to the appropriate education experience. I find that incomprehensible. In Northern Ireland, selection has worked in terms of improving social mobility, improving standards, and getting more people from working class backgrounds into university. However, I take some joy from clause 40, which allows for auditions or oral or practical tests. That, to me, is selection of a sort; the Minister can call it what she likes.
We will go through the Lobby to support the Bill. We hope that no more concessions will be made in Committee, that some of the weaknesses that have been identified will be addressed, and that some provisions will be strengthened to give youngsters a better chance of using the educational ladder to improve themselves.
4.34 pm
Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): The Government have a great deal of which to be proud in their educational record. We should not allow the Opposition to get away with their dismissive claims of, "Yes, there's more money and far more teachers and exam results are better, but what did you ever do for schools?" We have a good record of achievement and we need to build on it.
We cannot yet claim that the Government have decisively broken the link between social class and educational performance. The row about that and how to achieve it is at the heart of the debate, and I am glad. When the White Paper was published, it was spun in many quarters as a measure that was solely for aspirational, middle-class parents. Through the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the debate has become about the group of pupils who have not benefited as much as others from what we have done so far. The analysis supports that interpretation of the debate, and that is good.
The White Paper was controversial because it rested on two propositions about how to improve our schools: school autonomy and parental choice. I am not against either of those—there are merits in both—but the problem is that neither is sufficiently powerful to produce the improvements that we need throughout our school system. Both can produce good results in individual schools and improvements in individual areas. However, we need improvement across the board.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1525
Our actions so far in government have told us what makes a good school: strong leadership, well-supported staff, a balanced intake and parental support. Too many schools do not have all those elements, but autonomy and parental choice alone are not likely to deliver them. There is simply no evidence to show that the exercise of choice drives up standards. It is possible for choice, diversity and good schools to co-exist, as happens in Sweden. However, there is little evidence to show that parents choosing between different schools or schools competing for pupils drives up standards.
There is evidence to show that choice increases social segregation. Some people respond to that by saying that we should stop choice. I must say to my colleagues who feel like that that it is a non-starter. Although many parents do not especially want to exercise choice, they undoubtedly wish to feel that they have a choice. It is a political dead end to believe that we can solve our school problems by removing choice from the equation.
The challenge for us is to deliver a genuine choice of good schools. Choice itself does not ensure that schools are good. Successful schools will have a balanced intake. They are what we used to call "comprehensives" before that went out of fashion. The evidence suggests that comprehensives work. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), when speaking about The Oratory—a school of which I had not heard previously—tried to defend it on the basis that it sought a comprehensive intake.
One of the most distinctive things that has happened with academies is that schools that used to have an entirely disadvantaged intake now have a balanced one, and the Government say that they produce better results. I wish that we had been more prepared to argue that schools with balanced intakes were more successful for more pupils than any other model of education, and then set about finding the best strategies to achieve balanced intakes. As I said, I do not believe that one can do that by removing choice and saying, "You've got to go to that school—end of story." That will not work. We must win the argument parent by parent and school by school throughout the country.
In the Bill and the campaign since the White Paper was launched, we have made sufficient change to make the original market model, which some Conservative Members desperately want, pretty difficult to achieve. We have done enough so that in the areas where local authorities and others wish to do so, we can begin to devise local strategies for developing schools with balanced intakes. We will have information, monitoring and the admissions forums to take forward the campaign for a better sort of education. All of us, working together, have helped to achieve that in the past few months.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |