| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As a significant number of Members are still seeking to catch my eye in this debate, in accordance with the Order of the House of 26 October 2004 on shorter speeches, the Deputy Speaker has decided that between half-past Five o'clock and half-past Six o'clock a time limit of three minutes will apply. Obviously, whether or not Members take interventions is entirely a matter for them, but no time will be added if they do. I call Helen Jones.
5.28 pm
Helen Jones (Warrington, North) (Lab):
There is much in this Bill that is sensible and well thought out and builds on the Government's excellent progress in education. But I deeply regret that I cannot support the Government's proposals for trust schools because
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1540
I believe them to be wrong in principle and flawed in practice. Moreover, I believe that far from improving education for the most disadvantaged children, they will in fact disadvantage them further.
There are two things that we try to do in education. One is to pass on the skills that we need to the next generation, but the other is to transmit values to them. One cannot contract out that process—it is one of the basic responsibilities of civil society. Yet that is what we propose to do here. We propose to allow foundations, businesses and charitable organisations not simply to be partners in schools but to own and control them.
The proposal stems from two propositions—first, the belief that the current system has failed and, secondly, the belief that the measure will fix it. It is difficult for the Government to argue the first proposition when they keep announcing educational successes. They are right to do so, because the latest Ofsted report makes it clear that the proportion of good or excellent teaching has increased enormously since 1997. The number of schools causing concern or in special measures has fallen, and results have improved. The Opposition hate that fact, as they would rather that kids did not achieve many good results, but the numbers attaining five good GCSEs and better A-levels, as well as the proportion of children staying on at school, are increasing all the time.
It is therefore difficult to argue the first proposition. There are still problems in the education system that need to be reformed, and I hope to come on to that later. The question is whether the measure offers the right reform—will it fix the problem? Quite simply, there is zero evidence that people who have made a great deal of money are good at running schools. When the Select Committee examined the White Paper that preceded the Bill it said:
"No causal link has been demonstrated between external partners and the success of a school, or the independence of a school from local authority control and its success."
The Government have cited the example of specialist schools and academies. Our predecessor Committee said in 2003 that research on specialist schools could not separate the effect of an external partner from the large injection of cash that such schools receive. The data on academies are such that the case for them is still unproven. Most academies accept a smaller proportion of deprived children than their predecessor schools, but while some have improved results, others have stalled and some have produced worse results.
We are therefore being asked to make a leap of faith. In a form of educational creationism we are asked to proclaim "All the evidence is against it, but I believe it anyway." Doing so, however, would result in the creation of a system that is unfair, does not meet parents' aspirations, and fails to address many of the problems that remain. Despite the work that the Government have done on admissions—I acknowledge that work and give them full credit for it—the key question is who monitors admissions procedure. The Select Committee recommended that it should be local authorities working with school admissions forums that set benchmarks and produce annual reports. The whole process would be accompanied by an annual report to the House. Admissions forums, which are largely ad hoc bodies, are not capable of doing that by themselves, and they cannot administer an extremely complex system used by different admissions authorities.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1541
It is assumed that diversity in itself promotes choice, but the evidence does not stack up. Diversity and choice are two different things. In the London borough of Barnet, which has a large number of different schools and admissions authorities, 52 per cent. secure their first-choice school. In my local authority, the figure is 97 per cent. In other parts of the north-west, it is 99 per cent. The evidence for that assumption is simply not there. A great deal of evidence was given to the Select Committee showing that a wide variety of schools increases social segregation and clusters the poorest children in a small number of schools. I am worried about that, and I fear, too, the people who are waiting in the wings to take advantage of the proposal. Make no mistake—creationists and fundamentalists of all colours and creeds are waiting to use the proposal to take over schools. At a time when we ought to bring our young people together and allow them to learn to live together, I fear that we will push them further apart, which would be disastrous for this country.
There are contradictions in what is proposed. A Government who want to restore community cohesion want to move away from community schools. A Government whose whole agenda for 14 to 19 education, extended schools and even the youth service depends on co-operation between institutions have not accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee to put in the Bill a duty of co-operation between trust schools.
There is much that we need to do to reform education. We must get our best teachers into the most challenging schools. We must find out why some schools in very difficult circumstances produce excellent results and others do not. We need to manage the transition from primary to secondary school and make the personalised learning agenda a reality through proper training. The Bill is not the right reform to achieve that. It is not a reform for this century, but a return to the notion of philanthropism that applied in the 19th century. When my hon. Friends look at charities, I hope that they will remember that famous Labour saying—yes, it is an old Labour saying, and I am proud of it—that private charity is no substitute for organised justice.
5.36 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), with whom I shared membership of the Select Committee in the previous Parliament, and with whom I had many disagreements then and no fewer today. She says there is no evidence of benefit, but that does not mean that there is evidence of disbenefit. She speaks about the percentage of parents in her constituency who are fortunate enough to get the school of their choice compared with those in Barnet, but there is not much choice in some constituencies. I cannot speak for hers. There is a big choice in Barnet, so it is not surprising that so many are disappointed when there is a wide range of choice available.
What we want, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), is not that 100 pupils should get the school of their choice and that 365 should be rejected, but that 465 pupils should get the school of their choice. In other words, we need more good schools. When he was sent down from Oxford, the hero of "Decline and Fall" was told when seeking a teaching job that there are leading schools, good schools and
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1542
schools, and that schools are pretty awful. That, sadly, is the case for many parents, aspiring or otherwise, and pupils, capable or otherwise, not only in our inner cities, but in other parts of the country.
The only thing that makes me feel ashamed about representing the Isle of Wight is that we inherited a poor system of schooling, where no choice is available at high school level. My Conservative-controlled council inherited that from the Liberal Democrats, who had controlled the council for 20 years. There is no choice and no competition among high schools.
I have two points to make about the Bill. First, I am concerned that charities will not take part in the trust schools enterprise if they are over-regulated. There are regulation-making powers in clauses 7, 8, 12, 17, 19, 22, 24 and 25. If Ministers do not display a light touch—I suspect they may want to treat the regulation-making power with a light touch, although I am not sure that their hon. Friends on the Back Benches want to see such a light touch—the Bill will not achieve the objectives that Ministers seek.
The second point relates to school transport. I hope that the defence will be removed from section 444 of the Education Act 1996, which permits parents whose children are excluded from school transport because of misbehaviour to allow them to truant from school. There should be no obligation, as my youth council says, on those who misbehave to be carried to school at public expense.
5.39 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |