| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire) (Lab): I want to explore two issues—the value of independence in dealing with poor performance and choice. Information is available on demonstrable demand for independence. An experiment took place in the 1990s, when grant-maintained status was offered with significant financial inducements. We are not repeating that experiment this time, and one must therefore assume that that offer was unattractive to many schools.
In the 1990s, roughly 3 per cent. of primaries and 25 per cent. of secondaries went down the grant-maintained route, and almost all those schools are now foundation schools. In the past seven years, about 20 schools have converted to foundation status, so the offer has been there, but it has not been taken. In August last year, greater freedom was given to apply for foundation status, but I believe that the Department for Education and Skills is currently considering only a further six applications, which does not suggest that people are battering at the gate.
Why are Labour Members so concerned about the value of independence? The evidence on outcomes is far from clear. The performance of foundation schools at the primary level compared with Ofsted outcomes for failing schools that are in special measures or that have been warned about the need to improve indicates that
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1546
the performance of foundation schools and community schools is identical. The Government's model suggests that community or foundation status makes no difference to avoiding such sanctions, but there is evidence that there may be a gain at secondary level.
I will support the Bill tonight. As hon. Members who have listened to me know, I generally endorse the involvement of the private and voluntary sectors in the provision of state services. I therefore sympathise with some of the principles behind the Bill, but I am concerned about some of the practical thinking. Given what I have seen, small primaries need to be protected from some of the risks of going down that path—in my constituency, one primary reverted to community status after an appalling experience dealing with the freedoms that some hon. Members have commended.
On choice, there is no way round the fact that if one grants greater choice, one needs extra resources to pay for extra capacity, and I have heard no assurance to date that that will be offered.
5.54 pm
John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): I welcome the Bill, which will improve the quality of education, and I want briefly to focus on three issues. First, the introduction of specialist diplomas is radical, innovative and welcome. The Government deserve congratulation on taking forward the 14-to-19 agenda, but I have two concerns—timing and funding. I understand that the Government intend to introduce no fewer than five of those diplomas by 2008, 10 by 2009 and the full 14 by 2010, which is an ambitious time scale. I simply say to the Minister, in the most positive and courteous spirit, that in view of the need for extensive training for new personnel and for people with workplace experience to translate the aspiration of the vocational specialisms into effective practice, I hope that people will not have their expectations raised only to be disappointed.
In addition, there must be a commitment on funding. I know that the Government's implementation plan for the 14-to-19 agenda says that Ministers will provide the resources that are necessary to make it effective, and I dare say that that is what they intend. However, I hope that the Minister will accept that we need more specifics for this bold educational and social reform. It would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory were we to end up with a threadbare, insubstantial and underfunded programme. Please let us avoid that in the interests of all our young people.
Secondly, I want to say something about setting. I recollect that the White Paper referred to setting no fewer than 19 times. In 1997, the Government said that it should become the norm in secondary schools. I appeal to the Minister to abandon the religion of localism, which seems to have infected all the political parties. If they think that setting is a good thing, let them issue guidance, make it the norm, and invest some political muscle and capital in ensuring that it happens.
Finally, there were, last time I looked, no fewer than 61,000 looked-after children in this country, only 6 per cent. of whom secure five decent GCSEs and only 1 per cent. of whom go to university. Access matters, but they need tailored teaching, personalised learning and effective assistance. If the Government believe that they, and children in detention, are to be helped, and
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1547
they want to practise the philosophy and principle of social inclusion in which they believe, they must give that the resources that it requires.
5.56 pm
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): In Plymouth, there is real enthusiasm for collaborative work, but the current performance measurement gives people little credit for doing important work that can achieve as much—arguably more—in driving up standards than any single trust or foundation school. All 17 secondary schools, including the three grammar schools and two further education colleges, are part of collaboratives that extend the curriculum pathways for 14 to 19-year-old students. The quality and extent of those opportunities has been complimented by Ofsted. Schools also collaborate on staff training and development, including the training of new teachers. We want to take that work forward in radical new ways that include all our schools, not only the high-performing ones. We are concerned that some of that will be limited by the Bill's focus on the individual school as a unit of change and improvement.
Personalisation and collaboration extend choice in the curriculum for parents and students, as well as driving improvement. Such work already addresses the postcode selection by mortgage issue, and has the potential to do more—probably more than the White Paper proposals. It breaks down rigidities between grammar schools and the rest of the education community, up to a point, and could do much more in that direction to ensure that no child is ever made to feel that an 11-plus examination is a barrier to their progress. The significant personalisation money—£0.5 billion over the next two years—could work very well with the grain of that and help us to go as far and as fast as any education community in the country. I am among those who accept that we have much more to do.
In response to my earlier intervention, the Secretary of State said that she would actively encourage such an approach, but I seek her assurance that she will ensure that the money for personalisation and other specific funds is allocated in a way that complements collaboration and ensures that the money can follow the pupil from primary to secondary school. Most importantly, will she quickly find a way of measuring and acknowledging—indeed, rewarding—success across collaborating education communities, perhaps in relation to clause 114(2) to (4)?
My city is an ambitious city. We are ambitious for our children's education and very forward-looking. We want every child to matter and every school to be an excellent school. If the further debate in Standing Committee could make it clear that what I have described is not only possible, but something that the Government will actively encourage and create a framework in which it can thrive, not just survive, then perhaps I, and probably others, could be a lot more confident that we can deliver what we all want for young people as thoroughly and as quickly as possible.
5.59 pm
Mr. Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con):
I wrote to head teachers, talked to parents and parent groups and met local education authority officers. I
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1548
must now try to summarise in three minutes the mass of information that they gave me. I shall do my best to do them justice.
Most people to whom I spoke believed the Bill to be about structures and they hoped that it would be about rising standards. They said that they wanted help with standards and that they needed some action on several matters. I hope that we can amend the measure in Committee to help them achieve their objective. They want us to stop messing about with structures. They fear that education is a political football and say that it is time that it stopped being so. Although the Bill goes some way in that direction, it could have gone much further. Sadly, the Government withdrew from that position and that disappoints many of the people to whom I spoke.
Those people told me that we need more setting in schools and that they need more help to set properly. They believe that one of the major ways in which to improve standards is to understand that children learn best in groups with others of similar ability. We need to direct proper resources to those groups to get the best out of everybody who attends our schools.
The people to whom I spoke said that we should leave decision making to the professionals in our schools and they fear that we interfere too much. Two people told us that if we simply backed off, shut up and allowed teachers to get on with it, we would have better standards of education in all our schools. I believe that—we should trust professionals. We, as politicians, do not do that enough.
The people to whom I spoke believed that there should be a limited LEA model but that it should be mostly concerned with stepping in quickly when schools begin to fail. They also said that national league tables should be abolished. Everyone who talked to me told me that they were corrupt and open to manipulation. It is time we listened to that. Equivalence is a disgrace and I hope that the Minister for Schools tackles that point.
In a short time, I have tried to sum up some of the things that the people to whom I spoke told me. They want us to help them raise standards and to get off their backs so that they can do that. I hope that the Bill can be amended and we can give them what they want so that children can benefit.
6.2 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |