---

Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab): I am concerned about the direction in which we are travelling. The reforms that we have introduced since 1997 are a recipe for success, and success is beginning to come through: 2005 was the best year ever for results. The recipe is based on strong leadership from head teachers, substantial funding for schools and better, more highly trained teachers, working with children who are now motivated because they are in an environment that is more conducive to learning and teaching. The reforms have brought success, so it is standards that we should concentrate on, not structures.

My fear is that altering the structures, and particularly turning foundation schools into trust schools, will lead to unintended consequences. I honestly believe that there is no evidence to support the argument that competition in education can drive up standards. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) referred to the USA and in particular to California, but he missed out Minnesota. According to research done for the alternative White Paper, the charter school system in Minnesota did not work. Seventeen of its 88 charter schools have closed in the past decade, and the ones that remain open are providing education for better-off people.

We need to move away from the argument that by altering the structure of education, we can drive up standards. Altering the structure will not help kids in my constituency, many of whom live in deprived areas. We are already starting to see the benefits of universal nursery education and of Sure Start, which is engaging not just the kids but the parents with education. It is the best thing that this Government have done, and by concentrating on standards we can make improvements.

In conclusion, I support the National Union of Teachers' stance, which is that we should focus on comprehensive education and ensure that better standards lead to the results that we want to see.

6.17 pm

Mr. David Gauke (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): A generation ago, there was a great debate in this country on how we should run the economy. On one side were those who argued in favour of big government, planning and protecting failed industries and institutions; on the other were those who advocated competition, allowing successful institutions to expand and letting industries that were no longer fit for purpose fail. The latter view prevailed because some of the brighter elements in the Labour party recognised that the debate was no longer worth having, and that they needed to adapt. The same is happening now, in that those brighter elements recognise that the values of choice and diversity are also vital to our public services. Fundamentally, that is what this Bill is about.

Clause 2, which deals with choice and diversity, makes it clear that local education authorities must have regard to

"securing diversity in the provision of schools, and . . . increasing opportunities for parental choice."

Clause 3 states that they must take into account parental representations on these matters, and that they "must have regard to" guidance provided by the Secretary of
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1553
 
State. That provides a huge opportunity. The Secretary of State could say that if a majority of parents petition for a school to become a foundation school, it must become one. That is an excellent step.

There will be many more foundation schools than community schools. The Government, of course, have a vested interest in encouraging more foundation schools; it is, after all, a flagship policy. A few weeks ago, there was a power of veto preventing the creation of any new community schools, but the Government have bowed to pressure from their Back Benchers. Who is to say that they will not reverse their position once the pressure is off? I hope that they do, that the veto will be used to prevent the creation of such schools, and that we will see more foundation schools. The Bill includes powers for the Secretary of State to close failing schools in the interests of the welfare of children.

If we have more foundation schools, what powers will they have? They will have powers under the power to innovate programme and they can seek further derogations from regulations. For example, the Department is in discussion with some schools about varying local teachers' pay and conditions. That could be devolved to a local level under the Bill.

The buzz phrase—everybody is using it in all sorts of situations—is direction of travel. There is no doubt about the direction of travel of the Bill. It is in the right direction, at least from my perspective, and I welcome it.

6.20 pm

Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South) (Lab): I will support the Government tonight in the Lobby. The reforms that have been introduced, in terms of diversity and structure, increased powers for local authorities, and parental choice, will all in their different ways drive up standards. The research is clear and outlines the problems. As the proportion of children from low income backgrounds goes up, average results go down. The research explains that children from different backgrounds have very different chances of achieving good results. Those facts must be acknowledged and, when they are, we will have a chance of putting reforms together that will improve standards.

In my constituency in low income wards, only 24 per cent. of children achieve five good GCSEs. In average and high income wards, 80 per cent. of children achieve five good GCSEs. Over the past seven years, we have seen a 10 per cent. improvement in low income wards, but at that rate of improvement it will take 32 years for the children from low income families to match the achievement in average and high income wards. That is not acceptable. Reform is not an option: it is an absolute obligation.

The issue is not investment. We have put that in and we are still struggling to deliver effective improvements in standards for children from low waged families. It is therefore crucial that we improve the structure of delivery. I say that while acknowledging the research based on academies. It is not popular, but I will say it because it is factually correct. In Middlesbrough we have three academies and two of them are seriously delivering. Over three years, we have seen a significant increase in the number of children achieving five good GCSEs. We have also seen parents becoming very involved in the schooling of their children, and that is to
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1554
 
be commended. They are showing enthusiasm and commitment and once parents show that, we have serious support for increasing standards. Structure is important and I implore my colleagues to look at the evidence.

If there was one reason for me to support the Bill, it would be the admissions framework assurance that will give top priority to admissions for looked-after children. That is such an important part of the whole. In addition, local authorities will have an explicit commitment to narrow the gap in attainment between pupils from different backgrounds.

6.23 pm

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab): There are some good things in the Bill and it is a great improvement on the White Paper, but we would have had those aspects that are good anyway. I have to concentrate on what the Bill will do for Grimsby, and in my view the answer is very little.

First, the gutless failure to abolish selective education in Lincolnshire means that every day more than 100 kids are transported from Grimsby by bus and Range Rover to selective schools. That represents a loss of ability and parent power to schools in Grimsby. With more choice, that number might increase. People in the villages on the border might be eligible for the six-mile free travel for poorer children to attend selective schools in Lincolnshire.

Secondly, secondary education is improving fairly rapidly in Grimsby. We will probably have three academies, which means that there will be much more competition. How will schools improve their competitiveness and secure a higher place in the league tables? They will do so by attracting more kids of greater ability, and they can do that only by draining ability from the remaining schools in the area. Therefore, what measures will be put in place to help and sustain those schools suffering the drift away of able children to the better schools? How will those schools be protected, and how will they get the extra teachers, money and resources that they need to combat such competition?

Thirdly, how will the schools commissioner ensure that we do not have what might be called postcode trust-school syndrome, by which I mean that trust schools will be in the better areas, and not the poor or deprived areas that really need them? Trust schools are a very good idea, as long as power in the school is proportionate to contribution. Governors will have to make a massive contribution to their schools: otherwise, there will be no point to the changes, and we will have what amounts to merely an academy-lite system.

Fourthly, governors will have too many duties. Their duties will be enormous, and will prove to be much too hard for ordinary working people and families, and especially single-parent families, to perform. They also need to be paid—not out of school funds, but by the local authority or the state—if they are too to do the job properly, and if working people are to be represented among their ranks.

Finally, the power of local authorities needs to be strengthened, not reduced. Only they can ensure fair play for the whole area, with a fair distribution of SEN kids and other children with problems, and expulsions.
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1555
 

6.26 pm

---