Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Michael Connarty: May I take my right hon. Friend back to his first comment about the worry that the White Paper would be a charter for the middle classes to take over independent trust schools? Nothing that he has said up to now has convinced me that that will not happen, and the local authorities will not have the power to prevent it.
Mr. Denham:
We have ensured in the Bill that local authorities will have the leading role in objecting to the
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1526
kind of expansion of a school that would damage other schools. The Secretary of State has given us assurances that will provide some constraints, although not all the ones that I would have put in if I had been asked to write the Bill. However, I was not asked to write the Bill, so I am working with the one that we have got. We have made a lot of progress since the White Paper was published in ensuring that there are local strategies and local admissions forums that will be able to determine whether a development will be damaging to pupils in the wider area.
Many of us fought for certain safeguards, not to prevent a popular school from expanding, but to enable us to say to a school, "If you act like that, if you cheat like that, if you develop like that, or if you change in this way, it will damage the education of other children." The Bill is not perfect in regard to the safeguards that it contains, but it is a lot better than what we had when the White Paper was first published.
Clive Efford : Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Denham: No, I must make some progress.
When building on the Bill, we need to go beyond the idea of having a statutory admissions code. That is a building block for making the argument about a balanced intake. We then have to determine at local level how we should develop an approach that genuinely persuades parents that schools with a balanced intake are better for their children's education. There are elements in the Bill that will be important in enabling us to do that. I would almost throw the whole Bill away if I could keep the powers that will enable us to intervene quickly on schools that are beginning to fail, but have not yet been condemned by Ofsted. Too many children have suffered in schools that have drifted for two, three, four or five years before anything was done about them. The ability to get in there quickly is important.
There is not a lot about personalised education in the Bill, although the flavour of the concept is there. It involves the ability to give a guarantee to parents that their child will not disappear into the morass of a school that offers a lowest-common-denominator education. That is a key part of the strategy to develop schools with a balanced intake. For that reason as well, I believe that there is enough in the Bill to illustrate that we have made progress since the publication of the White Paper and that we should support it.
I wish, however, that the Bill had gone further. It is not enough to aspire to co-operation between schools. One of the big dividing lines between Labour Members, certainly on the Back Benches, and the Conservatives is that the Conservatives celebrate the independence and irresponsible autonomy of individual schools. We, however, believe that it is essential that schools collaborate across an area and take responsibility for the achievements of all children. I wish that the Bill had gone further in regard to the powers to require schools to form federations and to take responsibility for working together. I hope that, in the course of the Bill's passage through Parliament, we can diminish those deficiencies.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1527
Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the Leader of the Opposition, on recognising that this is a special Bill that deserves our support for all the right reasons, as well as some very good reasons that are more political. I also congratulate the Secretary of State and her Ministers on producing a Bill that has depth and vision and which deserves support right across the House.
When I decided to become a teacher, the first class that I faced before I did my postgraduate certificate was in a secondary modern school. I was horrified at the poverty of aspiration in the people in that school, from the teachers and parents to the children. That experience motivated me strongly to believe that we had to do something about the problem. During the course of that year, I passed a term at Leeds grammar school, and a more traditional and excellent school one could not find anywhere in the 1960s.
I am glad to say that, because my first full-time job in education was in Scotland, I am a Scottish-registered teacher. I recognised within about five minutes an enormous difference between the approach to education in Scotland and, in particular, the approach in England in the 1960s. During my 16-year education career, I also learned an enormous amountas a governor of schools in the old Inner London Education Authorityabout education at all levels and for those of all ages. I realised how privileged I had been in my own education; I also realised what I wanted for my children and for other people's children.
When I look at the Bill, I recognise something a little bit special: it has vision. When I think back to Kenneth Baker's great Education Act 1988I sat for many hours on the Standing Committee of what was known as the GerbilI also recognise that that was a landmark education Bill, and I suspect that this will be one too.
I regret that there is still such animosity towards grammar schools. We heard a moving speech from my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on the subject.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Robert Key: I certainly will not give way at this stage.
I also recognise, however, that in constituencies such as minewe have excellent grammar schools, which both my daughters attendedthere is not the animosity that there was 20 years ago. The grammar schools have changed, and all the other schools have changed. There is a mythology among Labour Members about hatred of grammar schools, which I think is wrong. I have a great admiration for the grammar school system throughout the country. Grammar schools make an enormous contribution and I hope that we shall see no diminution of support for them, although I do not believe that there will be any particular call for their re-establishment.
I looked carefully at clause 36 in case it was doing something of which I was not aware. I certainly would not support the Bill if it was going to abolish grammar schools, but I do not think that it will. I do not think that it says much more than was said in legislation a little earlier.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1528
What I particularly like about the Bill is that it will do things for my rural constituency as well as other constituencies. I do not agree that it is a London-centric Bill, although I know that that worries many people. For instance, clause 7, entitled "Invitation for proposals for establishment of new schools", is right on for the problem that we face in rural constituencies such as mine. Following the Government's building schools for the future initiative and the one-school pathfinder project, my local education authority was told, "Here is £20 million: build us a new secondary school." There was then a frantic competition. The LEA had to choose one secondary school among dozens that needed rebuilding. Last week, my constituency lost outfor all the wrong reasons. It was not that we do not need new secondary schools; we need at least two rebuilt secondary schools, or completely new schools. Good luck to Melksham: it won and we lost. It should not be like that, however, and I think that the Bill will enable us to overcome such failures in the system.
I am also delighted that school transport is being tackled in a more constructive way for the first time. I particularly like clause 11, "Establishment of school as a federated school". We have huge problems in rural schools, especially primary schools. We simply cannot go on having little village schools with 40, 50 or 60 children when more than 50 per cent. of children are brought in, unsustainably, in 4X4s from the surrounding market towns because their parents happen to like a particular school with a particular head teacher at a particular time, and it is a brilliant school. I do not want us to experience the traumas that we experienced in the village of Farley last year, or those that we are experiencing in the village of Redlynch this year. I want to see an approach like that in the village of Broadchalke, where there is to be one big school that will look after the needs of a large number of villages in the Chalke valley west of Salisbury.
Clauses 14 and 15 deal with the discontinuance of schools maintained by LEAs and with consultation. I am delighted at the recognition that the LEAs must consult the district council, the parish council and
That is constructive, although there are some omissions. There are issues that I should like to see tackled. I shall be told that that is not possible, but I do not think we are taking enough account of the needs of service schools. Thousands of the children of our service men and women are served very well by the service schools education authority. The Education Select Committee is not allowed to investigate service schools because they are a matter for the Ministry of Defence, and I am glad to say, as a member of the Defence Select Committee, that we are going to investigate service education. However, I would have been more comfortable with a joined-up government approach.
I turn to a fundamental issue, to which a number of Members have referred: the crying need for education in science and technology from year one of our children's school careers. I shudder when I hear about any more involvement with creationismas if it can be taken
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1529
seriously. We are told that this is only a comparative study and that it will never happen; nevertheless, I remain worried.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |