 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Education and Skills BIll |
Education and Skills Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Nick
Walker, Tom Goldsmith, Committee
Clerks
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 28 February 2008(Morning)
[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]Education and Skills BillClause 70Learning
aims for persons aged 19 and
over
9
am
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)
(Con): I beg to move amendment No. 52, in
clause 70, page 40, line 14, after ‘their’, insert
‘aspirations and’.
It is nice to be in the final
run, on the last lap of our marathon, which has been enjoyable and, we
hope, valuable. The amendment that I tabled with my hon. Friends deals
with the duty of the Learning and Skills Council to provide facilities
for training adults at only basic levels. The explanatory notes on
clause 70 state:
“New section 4A places a
new duty on the LSC to make proper (rather than reasonable) provision
for facilities to enable adults who lack particular vocational skills
to obtain relevant qualifications. The qualifications will typically be
those at relatively low levels of learning, which are designed to equip
people with basic and intermediate skills for work and everyday
living.”
Our
concern is that the Government are implicitly encouraging the LSC to
provide facilities for training at a too basic level, which is not in
line with the findings of the Leitch review, on which we touched
earlier in our considerations. The review explicitly spoke of the
importance of upskilling and reskilling the work force to deliver what
it called “world-class skills” because if we are to meet
the skills challenge we need to deal with the demographic imperative.
Even if we are highly successful with very young people, we need to
upskill the existing workforce to meet the demands of an increasingly
competitive world
economy.
According to
the Leitch review, we
need
“a step change in
skills investment if we are to meet those economic
challenges.”
The review
estimates that there will be 3 million fewer low-skilled jobs by 2020,
and a demand for another 5 million highly skilled workers. We cannot
rely only on improving on the skills of young people to meet this
challenge. Demographic change means that more than 70 per cent. of the
2020 workforce will be over the age of 16. Leitch
concludes:
“There
is a pressing need to raise the rates of skill improvements among
adults. The UK cannot reach a world class ambition by 2020 without
this.”
We have
a mountain to climb if we are to equip people with the skills they need
to prosper. More than a third of British adults do not have basic
school-leaving qualifications—double the proportion in Germany
and Canada. One in six do not have the literacy levels expected of an
11-year-old, and half do not have that level of functional numeracy.
Just 28 per cent. of
Britons are qualified to apprentice-skilled craft and technician level,
as opposed to 51 per cent. in France and 65 per cent. in
Germany.
There is
evidence, however, that people do not have sufficient access to
opportunities to raise their skills level. British
workers spend less time in job-related training than workers in key
competitor countries. Consequently, many workers below management level
have relatively poor skill levels and little prospect of advancement.
Participation in education and training can help to enhance prospects
for employment and career advancement, and can also lead to wider
benefits for the community and the individual concerned. Research
suggests that participation in learning can have benefits for health,
help to reduce crime and lead to greater social
cohesion.
There is an
entitlement to free tuition for any adult who has not achieved a full
level 2 qualification. As I suggested to the Minister in departmental
questions last week, the evidence suggests that there may be a
declining rate of participation for those who are not already trained
to level 2 standards. We tabled the amendment, because we are anxious
that the offer to the people concerned should be appropriate to meet
the skills targets outlined by Lord Leitch. There would be a real risk
that we would not do so if we set the bar too
low.
It is essential
that we raise Britain’s intermediate and higher-level skills. As
the Minister will tell us, it is a prerequisite to get people on the
ladder in the first place so that they can subsequently climb to the
top of it. However, I feel that there is a risk in the Bill as drafted
that we will set the standards below where they should be, and that the
Learning and Skills Council may set a common denominator that is
insufficiently demanding to meet the Leitch
challenge.
The
Chairman:
Order. I say this to help the hon. Gentleman. We
have 30 or 40 pages of amendments to get through in one day. This
amendment is very narrow, as it deals with the question of whether the
training provided by the council should meet someone’s
aspirations as well as their requirements. On one level, it is entirely
up to the hon. Gentleman how he uses his time, but if we have a very
detailed debate on each of the first 20 amendments, we will have no
debate on the remaining 50 or
so.
Mr.
Hayes:
Let me assure you, Mr. Bayley, that that
fear will not be realised. On looking at the amendments on the
selection list, I passed a note to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor
Regis and Littlehampton. In respect of amendment No. 52, I wrote
“longish”, referring to my speech, but in respect of
subsequent amendments, I wrote “v.
short”.
Mr.
Hayes:
I assure you, Mr. Bayley, that we will
make rapid progress following this extensive peroration. I think it
important that we fill the Bill with aspiration. As you suggested in
your reference to the amendment, Mr. Bayley, that is
precisely the term that we have used. If we set individual and national
aspirations at insufficiently
demanding levels, we will not only short-change
those individuals but we will not face up to the realities identified
in Leitch regarding the need to raise skills levels to maintain
economic competitiveness. If we are to upskill and reskill to meet the
skills challenges outlined by Leitch, adults will need access to
education and training at various stages of their working lives and at
various levels. We need a mechanism to ensure that the resources are
there to provide support, when required, through a lifetime of
learning. It is in that aspirational spirit that I have tabled the
amendment.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and
Skills (Mr. David Lammy):
I
am sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment. It is because we
want to help adult learners meet their aspirations and aid the least
skilled in achieving their potential that we are introducing, for the
first time, the right to free training towards Skills for Life. That
training would cover a person’s first full level 2—GCSE
level—qualifications and, for those aged between 19 and 25,
their first level 3—A-level standard—qualification. All
the stakeholders I have met, from college principals to organisations
representing adult learners, providers and employers, have indicated
their support for the new duties on the Learning and Skills Council in
clause 70. College principals indicated that support in the
Committee’s oral evidence
sessions.
The
hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is right to point to the
Leitch review of skills, which is the backdrop to the provisions. Our
stretching ambition is to have world-class skills by 2020, and that
means that we need to go further in creating a system that responds to
learners’ individual requirements to improve aspirations and
increase demand for learning. To pick up on the language used in the
Committee, clause 70 does much to “galvanise”—or
as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings prefers to say,
“catalyse”—the system so that it can respond to
individual learner needs and aspirations. Ensuring that people have the
opportunity to obtain a wide range of skills at basic and intermediate
levels is the most effective way both to improve the life chances of
those with fewer skills and to support social
justice.
They key
change in clause 70 is that, for the first time, we have placed a new
duty on the Learning and Skills Council to secure the provision of
“proper”, rather than “reasonable”,
facilities for specified adult qualifications. To fulfil that duty, the
Learning and Skills Council must secure the provision of facilities for
education and training which are of sufficient quantity and quality to
meet the reasonable needs of individuals and be suitable to their
requirements. In practice, the new duty on the LSC means that adults
have a right to expect free and appropriate provision for specified
Skills for Life qualifications. In future, learners can expect a wide
variety of courses on offer to suit their requirements: those courses
should be made available within a reasonable time period and should be
free.
Mr.
Hayes:
I am grateful to the Minister for welcoming the
spirit of the amendment. He will know that work-based training has
declined over the past 20 years. What element of work-based training
does he anticipate will form part of the range of products offered as a
result of the Bill, and how does he explain that
decline?
Mr.
Lammy:
The hon. Gentleman and I have had disagreements,
ever since I took up my post, on the numbers behind work-based
training, and I have continually tried to reassure him. I am beginning
to think that he is the only person left in the country who believes
that work-based training has declined. It has not. It continues to be
something of which we can be proud, and the Government’s
aspirations are to take work-based training
further.
When the hon.
Gentleman looks at the statistics, he must concentrate his attention,
particularly in relation to apprenticeships, on the number of young
people who start work-based training and the number who complete it. He
will see that on both accounts the figures have gone up and are moving
in the right direction. If he concentrates on the number of young
people as a snapshot, or as an average of young people in learning,
there appears to be a decline. He has written to me in the past and
told me not to do that in relation to the figures when his
Administration were in power—that is where we have got the
figure of 75,000 from. We want young people coming on, and coming off,
work-based training—not staying on it and failing to complete
it. If completions go up, the average number in learning at any one
time appears to be lower—it is about starts and completions.
That is the statistical difference. The hon. Gentleman might be using
statistics to meet his argument, but he has also challenged me on
statistics, when I have used them in that way. Work-based learning is
not in decline, but going in the right
direction.
9.15
am
Mr.
Hayes:
The Minister is always generous in accepting
interventions. I do not want to prolong this too much. First, perhaps
we can look at figures on work-based training later in the day and
satisfy ourselves as to who is
right.
Secondly—I
raised this issue in a ministerial question last week, but I have not
yet received an answer—what about the Learning and Skills
Council data, which suggest that the number of adults without a level 2
qualification who are now participating is less than it previously
was.
Mr.
Lammy:
Over the comprehensive spending review period, the
Department will spend £1.5 billion per annum on learning below
level 2, to get people up to level 2, precisely because that is the
direction of travel and we want to see people moving in the right
direction. That is what the clause is
about.
Learner choice
is paramount, so the Bill requires the Learning and
Skills Council both to increase opportunities for learners to exercise
choice and to encourage a wider range of education and training
opportunities. That includes the provision of more part-time courses
and ensuring a closer fit with the local, regional and national job
market. Effective operation of our information, advice and guidance
services under the guise of the adult advancement and careers service,
too, will support learners, helping them to identify the right courses
for them up front and, if necessary, to find a range of suitable
alternatives to meet their needs and aspirations. Those services will
proactively market the opportunities open to people, and ensure that
they have information about courses and financial
support. We envisage that
the advancement service will work with the LSC to
address any gaps in provision. From what I have said so far, the
Committee will see that I support the intention of the amendment, but
believe that the provisions in clause 70 go a long way towards
achieving what the amendment
desires.
The
inclusion of the word, “aspirations”, is inappropriate on
two levels. First, on a practical level, the LSC is necessarily a
high-level funding body, which must make strategic decisions on the
funding of facilities and training across the country while acting to
increase opportunities for learners to exercise choice. We might
reasonably expect it to reach a view on whether facilities are suitable
to the requirements of persons falling within subsection (3) of new
section 4A. However, the LSC is not the body that will deal day to day
with individuals and assess their needs according to their future
goals. In other words, the LSC is not in a position to meet something
as subjective as a learner’s aspiration. That would require it
to engage at too deep a level with every individual in the bracket,
because learners’ aspirations are highly subjective.
We consider that nextstep,
learndirect and the future adult advancement and careers service are
best placed to engage directly with learners to define their
aspirations and access courses best suited to them. The legislation
must be seen as an essential building block in the wider context of
delivering commitments set out in the “World-class
Skills” reforms, which, over the course of the next few years,
will ensure that all adults have access to the learning opportunities
and wider support that they need to achieve those skills, find work and
establish careers in line with their
aspirations.
Linked to
that point is the fact that aspirations are
subjective. The clause uses the word,
“requirements”, which is much more easily defined in law
through assessment of needs and can be costed. Aspirations are
potentially unlimited and difficult to determine. The amendment would
put the LSC in the position of being required to make provision to
satisfy ambiguous aims. The clauses as drafted are carefully balanced
to ensure that the duties of the Learning and Skills Council enable it
to operate in practice, while enabling learners’ needs to be
met. That is why it uses the word,
“requirements”.
Finally,
I would like to emphasise that part of the intention of the clause is
to signal to the system that adult skills are as important as improving
the skill levels of young people. We have had much discussion about the
skills needs and participation of young people, but we should remember
that, if we are to meet that Leitch ambition, two thirds of the 2020
work force are already in work and are adults. Indeed, it is at that
cohort of people—and there are many of them—who have jobs
that will stop being part of the British economy in this century, who
never got an O-level standard qualification, and who do not have the
appropriate literacy and numeracy levels, at which the provisions in
clause 70 are aimed. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Member for
South Holland and The Deepings will withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes:
This has been a useful opportunity to speak about
skills and their significance, and how the Bill affects the ambitions
that we share for raising skills
levels. One might argue that learning detached from aspirational intent
is an impoverished affair. However, the Minister
makes a plausible argument that the amendment would make the practical
job of constructing learning very difficult, because aspirations are as
various as the individuals in the
system.
We hope,
however, that the Government will be absolutely committed to ensuring
that the learning put in place as a result of the Bill is progressive
and aspires to allow people to achieve their potential. That is the
spirit of the amendment, but, given what the Minister
has said and his shared determination to bring about
that aim, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
We have had a wide debate on the amendment, and
I should tell the Committee that I am minded not to have a stand part
debate when we reach that
stage.
We now come to
amendment No. 115. Seeing the text of the amendment, I am sure that I
should call Mr.
Gibb.
Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): Yes, I
am moving the amendment, Mr. Bayley, although it could
easily have been my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The
Deeping.
I beg to move
amendment No. 115, in clause 70, page 43, line 33, at end
insert—
‘(4A) For the
purpose of paragraph (4) a level 1 literacy qualification must ensure
that students can effortlessly decode any word using the principles of
synthetic
phonics.’.
In
view of the time remaining for the Committee stage of the Bill, I will
keep my remarks succinct. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce
into the new definition of level 1 literacy that will be inserted into
the Learning and Skills Act in new subsection (4A), the requirement
that students must be able to
“effortlessly decode any word,
using the principles of synthetic
phonics.”
I
wanted to make the point that in Britain and America, but particularly
in Britain, we have a long tail of underachievement. That is a defining
characteristic of the British education system in comparison with other
OECD countries. According to the National Audit Office, 23 per cent. of
adults cannot read the dosage on an aspirin bottle. The same figure
applies in the United States. That is one of the highest levels of
illiteracy in the OECD. Britain and the United States have one thing in
common: since the 1950s, they have both gone down the route of using
“look and say” as a method of teaching children to
read.
The idea behind
that method is that children will be able to sight read instantly, in
the way that adults can when they read words. Bright or average
children can pick up decoding techniques using that method.
However, less able children do not grasp it. That bottom 25 per cent.
of children have suffered for 50 years in this country and the United
States from the “look and say” method of teaching
children to read. That is an appalling tragedy, yet many people in the
education establishment still advocate that
method.
In
the Clackmannanshire study, which was conducted over seven years, a
synthetic phonics method was used
to teach children the 44 sounds of the alphabet and how to blend them
together into words within the first 16 weeks of school. It was so
successful that, after seven years, those children had a reading age of
fourteen and a half at the age of 11. That is three and a half years
above what was expected of their age group, and above the level that
they would have attained, had they stuck to the previous system. The
National Reading Panel in the United States is a multi-million dollar
research project, and it shows unequivocally that synthetic phonics is
how children should be taught to read.
When teachers say, “Yes
we use phonics, but we need a range of measures as well”, it
means that they are not using synthetic phonics. Synthetic phonics has
to be an exclusive scheme. One cannot shift between schemes. The main
characteristic is that children’s reading books should not
include words that go beyond the child’s phonic knowledge. If
children are taught to guess a word from the picture, the story or
grammar context, they are not developing and honing their decoding
skills. If they are not doing that, they are not learning to
read.
People complain
that it is “read and bark” and does not develop
vocabulary, but we are only talking about the first few weeks of
schooling. Of course, one can help children to understand words with
comprehension too, but there must be a focus on teaching children how
to decode the alphabet in the same way that a piano teacher teaches a
child how to transfer notes from the written stave on to the keys of a
piano and to practise their
fingering.
I
am delighted that the Government have commissioned the Rose review to
implement the scheme. It is not a right-left issue—it is a
right-wrong issue, and we have to work together to ensure that it is
rolled out in all schools. It is the fundamental building block of
education. I have seen many examples of schools around the country that
have adopted synthetic phonics, which has transformed the life chances
of children from very deprived backgrounds. We must ensure that
synthetic phonics is used in every state primary school in this
country, just as it is used in every independent primary school. That,
more than any other single measure, will raise educational achievement
in this country.
Stephen
Williams (Bristol, West) (LD): First, I congratulate the
hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on succeeding in having
his amendment selected and his hobby horse debated. He has had more
luck than my hon. Friends had in the Chamber on Tuesday when we were
tried to have our amendment on Europe selected. While we were debating
the Education and Skills Bill in Committee, we missed all the fun that
was going on in the
Chamber.
I, too, visit
many primary schools, just like the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton. I always ask teachers how they teach children to read,
and there is real enthusiasm for, and commitment to, synthetic phonics
as a valuable tool. Indeed, I sat in on a lesson, and by the end, I was
able to pronounce several words quite differently from how I would
normally do. I cannot remember whether it was Lord Lamont or the right
hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) who said
that he did not want to be a “one-club” Chancellor, with
only one club in his bag: in other words, using interest rates as the
only policy to bear down on inflation.
There are many ways of teaching
children to read. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
referred to “look and say”. If there is just one method
in the Bill, there is a danger that it will be promoted over and above
all the others. Synthetic phonics undoubtedly works for all children,
which is what the hon. Gentleman argued, but “look and
say” and other methods are necessary to bring on other children
who may get bored quite quickly with synthetic
phonics.
Mr.
Gibb
:
This is an important point. There are no
children for whom “look and say” is more appropriate.
What teachers tell me is that some children simply do not get phonics.
They are the least able children, and so the least likely to get on
with “look and say”. If children cannot get the synthetic
phonics and the phonics approach, they have to get it, which means
taking them aside and giving them extra lessons to ensure that they can
decode words using phonics.
9.30
am
Stephen
Williams:
I do not think we disagree. I am just saying
that there is more than one way of teaching children to read.
The Bill is
primarily concerned with 16 and 17-year-olds, but the clause that the
hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton seeks to amend sets a
literacy target for those aged 19 and over. By the time someone is 19
and over, the ability to pronounce or decode a word in a phonics style
is not necessarily an adult skill to which we would aspire or wish to
visit upon our fellow countrymen. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman
genuinely desires the literal interpretation of his amendment: that
everyone aged 19 and over should be able to decode phonics. I would
have thought that success with phonics meant that children, by the age
of seven or eight, would be able to read in what we would describe as
the normal way and would have forgotten that phonics was the method by
which they learned to read. To suggest that those aged 19 and over
should be able to speak in a phonics style seems rather bizarre, so I
will not support the amendment if it is pressed to a
vote.
Mr.
Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): In special
schools, where there are children with real barriers to learning,
synthetic phonics is used, and it succeeds in teaching those children
to read. It brings shame on our nation that 40,000 youngsters leave
school each year unable to read, write and add up properly. The
Minister for Schools and Learners puts his head in his hands, but the
standard that those youngsters fail to achieve means that they cannot
write to their bank to tell it they have
moved.
The
Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight):
We are
talking about adult skills, and many of the people whom we are talking
about in relation to the Bill were educated under a previous
Government. I think that it would be worth while for the hon. Gentleman
to bear that in
mind.
Mr.
Heald:
I am grateful to the Minister, who seems to have
forgotten that his lot have been in office for 10 years, so
we are talking about many youngsters who
have been educated under the Labour Government. It
is not a party political issue to say, as a country, that our
youngsters ought to be able to read and write. If we use synthetic
phonics to teach children who face real barriers to learning, it is our
duty to teach those who do not face such barriers. To
have so many people leaving school unable to read, write and add up
properly is wrong, and is an unacceptable scar on the nation. When one
can read and write, one can of course educate oneself. In the great
history of socialism, the Labour party had the Labour book club, and
people educated themselves because they could read and
write.
Mr.
Heald:
They did not necessarily get the right answer. The
truth is that the ability to read and write is such a huge engine for
education and achievement that we need to do better as a
country.
Mr.
Lammy:
I have often wondered what the hon. Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton would sell if he were a salesman, and I
think that the Committee has been provided with the answer. The new
duty on the Learning and Skills Council to secure provision for proper
facilities for learners includes the basic literacy skill
level—literacy at level 1—that was identified in the
independent report by Sandy Leitch as essential to changing
people’s lives and upskilling the work force.
The amendment
would add an additional level of complexity to the learning aims of
learners undertaking a level 1 literacy qualification, as it would
ensure that students can effortlessly—I am having literacy
problems, as I cannot pronounce that word—decode any word using
the principles of synthetic phonics. I should emphasise that these are
adult skills courses aimed at people over the age of 19, and the hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton directed his remarks
primarily at children’s education.
The relevant
clauses are aimed, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and
Learners indicated, at people who were in education prior to 1989.
Learning to decode words using the principles of synthetic phonics
involves a particular approach to the teaching of reading. Synthetic
phonics is a particular branch of phonics, and is by no means the only
method of teaching reading. I believe that it should be up to
institutions, working with teachers and partner organisations such as
Lifelong Learning UK and the Quality Improvement Agency, to decide
exactly which teaching methods are appropriate for use with individual
adult learners.
Mr.
Gibb:
I counsel the Minister to be cautious about the
notes that have been prepared for him. The amendment is a probing
amendment, and I accept that he is talking about adult skills. However,
if we apply the principle to children, the law that was passed by his
Government says that primary schools should use one exclusive
method—synthetic
phonics.
Mr.
Lammy:
I acknowledge the progress made since the Rose
review in relation to this subject. However, we should remember that
the clause will affect adults from communities in which English is a
second language,
adults who have had a bad experience at school but are able to read and
get the gist, and adults with special needs. A whole range of adults
are in that cohort, and we therefore believe it is right to give
institutions the choice and flexibility to apply the pedagogy that they
believe is appropriate. Some, indeed, will use synthetic phonics where
it is appropriate; others will not. I suspect that is why the hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton focused on
children.
Mr.
Hayes:
Perhaps I can be helpful. Is this not really an
issue about the different levels of competence of those adults? We know
that literacy and numeracy, in their functional forms are very
different from literacy and numeracy per se. People can be
illiterate—literally unable to read or write a word—or
they can be functionally illiterate. Perhaps the Minister could be
helpful to the Committee, to my hon. Friend and to me by giving us a
feel for how those groups break down. Roughly 40,000 young people leave
school at 16 each year functionally illiterate and innumerate. That
total includes many people who are wholly illiterate. The methodology
will apply differently to different people. What is the breakdown, and
how many adults lack those very basic
skills?
Mr.
Lammy:
The hon. Gentleman is right in relation to literacy
and numeracy. If, like him, one is in church every Sunday morning, it
is possible to learn a hymn by singing it every week for six weeks, and
yet still have serious problems with basic literacy. In the same way,
it is possible to buy a round of drinks in the pub and to give friends
the appearance of knowing what change to expect from a £20 note,
while lacking the numeracy skills to know the cost of that round of
drinks. Adults adapt and adjust in many ways to the numeracy and
literacy challenges they face.
As for the figures, he will
know that our ambition is that 95 per cent. of working adults will have
functional level 1 literacy and entry level 3 numeracy skills by 2020.
I do not have the figures for those who are completely illiterate to
hand, but if I obtain them, I will let the hon. Gentleman
know.
Mr.
Hayes:
It would help if the Minister provided
the Committee with a breakdown of the levels of
competence—the paucity of skills—among different groups
of individuals. That would give us a better opportunity to make a
judgment about the application of different
approaches—methods—to helping those people. If he cannot
do that now—I accept that it is a tall order—it would be
helpful if he could commit to coming back to the Committee with the
breakdown.
Mr.
Lammy:
I think that the breakdown is in the Leitch review,
which the hon. Gentleman has at his side. It goes into these issues in
some depth. I am happy to come back him as to where those are contained
within the report. The clause is directly aimed at meeting the 2020
ambition in Leitch.
We would question whether
requiring students to be able to decode words—I do not
like this word—effortlessly would set an unrealistic threshold
for all adult learners gaining a level 1 literacy qualification. On the
contrary, I would suggest that for these learners,
even at the conclusion of their literacy course, reading is likely to
require some effort. It also begs the question how we would assess
someone if he had performed a task effortlessly. That is ambiguous and
difficult to apply. For that reason, I hope that the amendment will be
withdrawn.
Mr.
Gibb:
The “toe by toe” reading scheme is
used in prisons to teach children to read. That is a synthetic phonics
programme. I do not agree that it is not a skill that all adults need,
even at the age of 19. If you read the latest Michael Chabon book, for
example, it is full of words I have never come across before. To say
them to myself, I used the synthetic phonics approach of sounding them
out. Whenever a person comes across a new word, it is possible to use
that approach. It is a skill that people need. If someone was taught
under the “look and say” method and had not encountered a
word before, it would not be possible to ask someone else what it
meant. It is a very important point, therefore. I was disappointed by
the Minister’s notion that somehow the threshold is too high for
some people. Again, that is the education of low expectations and low
aspiration.
Mr.
Lammy:
To correct the record, I did not suggest that the
threshold was too high. I was simply making the point that it cannot
and should not be something that is directed by the Government and
Whitehall. We cannot have it both ways. We are talking about adults and
professionals, and many of those professionals gave evidence to the
Committee. They must determine whether, at this level, phonics and the
pedagogy that they wish to use is useful. There will be many who choose
that option. There are others, however, who will rightly choose other
options. The amendment would require them to go down one route. We
should be more flexible than that.
Mr.
Gibb:
As I said, this is a probing amendment so we could
have a debate on the deep-seated causes of illiteracy in this country
which causes a problem to 19-year-olds in the workplace and older young
adults in the workplace who do not have these skills. The Government,
the Opposition and some members of the Liberal party are all saying
that there is one method of teaching children to read in primary school
and it is synthetic phonics. This is not because we know better but
because the evidence is unequivocal. There is no question when you read
the evidence that it is the method to teach children to read, and those
that do not do it are not using their professional skills according to
best practice. The Government agree with that and we agree with the
Government.
The way
dyslexic children are taught to read is with an intensive synthetic
phonics programme. Even for children with special needs, therefore, it
is also the right approach. I do not care which Government were in
power because the approach was not driven by Ministers until recently
when, in a welcome way, the Government intervened to require synthetic
phonics to be taught. That was driven by the
education establishment. The academics and the colleges of education
have peddled a “look and say” approach under our
Conservative Government, the previous Government to that and under this
Government as well until the Rose review.
“Look and say” reached its peak in the mid-1980s under
Margaret Thatcher’s Government. I do not care, therefore, under
which Government it occurred—it was wrong. I am delighted that
we have now seen sense and that we are requiring primary schools to use
the method that all the evidence in the United States, the UK and
elsewhere says is the most effective method of teaching children to
read. Indeed, it is now used in Australia as well.
We have had a brief but
interesting debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn
.
9.45
am
‘, or the International General
Certificate of Secondary
Education,’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 118, in clause 70, page 44, line 10, at end
insert
‘or the Cambridge
Assessment Pre-U
qualification.’.
Mr.
Hayes:
Having pleased my hon. Friend by not
speaking on the previous amendment about my affection
for “Janet and John” books and the “look and
say” method of learning to read, I shall now please him and you,
Mr. Bayley, by being very brief in speaking to these
amendments.
They
relate to part 3, which deals with adult skills. In particular, they
would amend part 2 of proposed new schedule 1A that
clause 70 would insert into the Learning and Skills Act 2000, which
relates specific qualifications to the learning aims for persons aged
19 and over. The amendments would add to the list of qualifications the
international general certificate of secondary education and the
Cambridge Assessment pre-U qualification. We have debated both of them
before, and do not need to do so again. The amendments speak for
themselves and we look forward to the Minister’s equally pithy
response.
Mr.
Lammy:
As has been said, we have already debated the IGCSE
and pre-U qualifications at some length in relation to part 1, so I do
not propose to go over the same ground, and I am grateful that the hon.
Gentleman did not either.
Clause 70 is drafted so as to
define the new duties on the Learning and Skills Council against
generic and widely recognised descriptions of qualifications. As I have
already said, for level 2 that is five good GCSEs or above, and for
level 3 it is two A-levels. As they stand, the descriptions of the
relevant level of attainment at levels 2 and 3 are appropriate and well
understood by the Learning and Skills Council, the Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority and the further education sector. They are also
easily understood by learners and employers. That is not an
insignificant point when one of the aims of the clause is to signal the
Government’s commitment to adult learning to the sector and to
eligible learners.
Amendment No. 117 would insert
IGCSEs in the description of level 2 qualifications in paragraph 6 of
proposed new schedule 1A. We have used GCSEs as a
generic description and a reference point for level 2 qualifications
because they provide a widely recognised standard of education. That, I
am afraid, does not apply to the IGCSE, which is not so generally
known.
As a
descriptor for a level 2 qualification for adults, the IGCSE is wholly
inappropriate. Paragraph 1(c) of new schedule 1A makes it clear that
only vocational qualifications at level 2 will fall under the duties in
the clause. We simply use GCSEs as a benchmark in our description of
level 2 because they provide a generally recognised measure of the
level of attainment.
Amendment No.
118 concerns the description of level 3 and would insert a reference to
a specific qualification, designed by an individual awarding body, into
primary legislation. Again, the addition would not be helpful, because
the pre-U qualification is not widely recognised among learners. Nor
would it be right to single out qualifications of particular
organisations in that way at level 3. For those reasons, I hope that
the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes:
The amendments are, almost by definition, probing
amendments. We hear what the Minister says. We remain convinced that
the qualifications that we have identified need to be considered
carefully, because there is widespread support for them in the higher
education community. There will come a point when the universities will
want to accept them and will come to value them as at least equivalent
to the existing qualifications that provide the entry route
clarification, and their acceptance will become inevitable. However,
this is not the time to vote on the matter, and I therefore beg to ask
leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
70 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 29 February 2008 |