Jim
Knight: The amendment proposes that sixth form provision,
which I take to mean school sixth forms as well as sixth-form colleges,
should offer a specified list of A-level subjects as a minimum. This is
an attempt by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to
tempt me into a long and interesting debate on the future of the
A-level, but I hope to be relatively brief and disciplined about
that.
Although it
will be appropriate for many sixth forms to offer that combination of
subjects, decisions about what courses should be offered should be
determined locally, taking into account the needs and demands of young
people and the skills needs of local employers. We have made it clear
through the qualifications strategy we published last year that we want
all young people aged 14 to 19 to follow a broad and coherent learning
programme and that we expect the majority of young people to follow
qualifications that fall within one of the four national learning
routes—apprenticeships, diplomas, GCSEs and A-levels and the
foundation learning tier progression pathways.
We have also
said that it will not be possible for an individual school or college
to deliver the full 14-19 entitlement in isolation. They would have to
do so in partnership, and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North
Poole made a useful intervention on that point earlier. There will be a
presumption in favour of funding qualifications that fall within the
four national routes, and that will provide the framework for sixth
forms to take local decisions about provision.
Of course,
sixth-form colleges are generally renowned for their A-level provision,
but it is worth recognising that provision in sixth-form colleges has
generally become broader and more diverse as colleges adapt to meet the
changing needs of young people. We therefore leave it to them to judge
the learning programme that best serves the needs of young people in
their
area.
Mr.
Gibb: Does the Minister think it acceptable, therefore,
for the sixth form of a state comprehensive school not to offer either
A-level English or
Maths?
Jim
Knight: The hon. Gentleman has a slightly outdated vision
of the world. He is not properly accounting for the nature of 14 to 19
partnerships and the point that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and
North Poole raised with him, where excellent providers of post-16
education are working together. In some cases, the offer will be there
for all pupils in all sixth forms in state-maintained schools and it is
right that it should be made. The hon. Gentleman reeled out a long list
of schools regardless of whether they entered pupils for certain
subjects. There is a difference between offering and entering for
examinations, according to how learners exercise their
choice.
Mr.
Gibb: As I was citing the right hon. Gentleman’s
ministerial answer, perhaps he could write and tell me which of the
schools that did not offer or enter any students for those subjects
offered the subject but no students took it up? I would be happy to
have that
information.
Jim
Knight: I would be delighted to help the hon. Gentleman
and the whole House in giving that information but I suspect that we do
not have it in the Department.
Mr.
Gibb: Then do not make that
assertion.
Jim
Knight: There is a limit to the amount
of data that we wish to require schools to collect. As the
hon. Gentleman will know from his observation of proceedings
at this weekend’s ASCL conference—not the
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning conference but the
Association of School and College Leaders—head teachers have a
lot of concern about the amount of data collection and bureaucracy
attached to schools at the moment. We could go on and on trying to
acquire such information. I suspect that if the hon. Gentleman asked
the question differently in a parliamentary question we might reply
that the answer could be provided only at disproportionate
cost.
Mr.
Stuart: The amendment is designed to ensure that provision
of basic subjects is available in the sixth form. It is not ancient
Greek or Latin or ancient history; they are pretty basic subjects. One
of the purposes is to ensure there is no shrivelling of the offer
available to young people, particularly in low-income areas and where
educational outcomes may not be at their greatest. Does the Minister
not share our fears that, whether or not offers are theoretically
available, the basic subjects that allow people to go on to
high-quality higher education are actually not
available?
Jim
Knight: I do not agree that there is a
shrivelling—to use the hon. Gentleman’s word. A bigger
range of qualifications is studied, and that is of value to individual
learners and their ambitions. When I look across the piece I see
A-level entries for physics starting to increase after a period of
decline and a huge increase in the number studying further maths. Those
are just two examples of the sort of subjects that I am sure we all
want to see studied in order to deliver on the agenda on science,
technology and maths.
I understand
the calls for an A-level entitlement. That is something we have agreed
to review in 2013. In the meantime, I believe A-levels are in a strong
position and they seem to be thriving without the formal entitlement
that the amendment suggests.
Amendment 261
is also concerned with sixth form provision and, as we have heard,
proposes that a local authority be required to fund newly established
sixth forms for existing and new academies. I welcome the amendment
because it gives me the opportunity to give the assurance that I think
the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton wants.
As hon.
Members will recall from the oral evidence sessions, all the Bill does
is pave the way for the Secretary of State to ask the young
people’s learning agency to undertake on his behalf certain
largely administrative functions in respect of academies. The nature
and funding
of academies will not be affected by the changes. They will continue to
be funded by the Secretary of State but the YPLA will carry out the
calculation of grant and payment on his behalf. That applies equally to
sixth form funding. The Secretary of State will retain responsibility
for negotiating and signing academy funding agreements, which
means—in direct response to the hon. Gentleman’s citation
of Dan Moynihan’s comments—that he will make decisions
about whether a new academy should have a sixth form and how many
places it should have. The YPLA will act on behalf of the Secretary of
State on funding agreements for open academies, including their sixth
forms. 11.30
am When
considering adding a sixth form to an existing academy that does not
already have one, it will be necessary to determine a local
area’s need. That will be discussed and negotiated by the local
14-to-19 partnership and the academy, but if an agreement is not
reached, the decision will ultimately be made by the Secretary of
State, who will take into account the views of the academy, the
14-to-19 partnership and the local authority. The Secretary of State
may also ask the YPLA to carry out that function on his behalf, or
advise him, as it will have the regional knowledge of existing
provision in the area, but the decision will still lie with the
Secretary of State. In essence, nothing changes in respect of the point
that the amendment is trying to make. I hope that, on the basis of that
reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw
it.
Mr.
Gibb: I am disappointed by the Minister’s response
to amendment 260, because I do not think that it is old-fashioned to
require sixth forms to offer very basic subjects as A-levels. As my
hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness said, the amendment
would not require sixth forms to offer Latin, ancient Greek or the
classics; it would simply require them to offer core subjects, which
are essential for entry into the Russell group of universities.
Cambridge in particular has cited A-levels that it accepts and those
that it does not. A school that does not offer core subjects restricts
its students’ chances of attending a Russell group university. I
am concerned that there is an increasing trend towards such a
situation. If the Minister believes, as I do, in comprehensive
education, all schools must offer basic core subjects. They can offer
alternatives in relation to 14-to-19 entitlements, but academic
subjects should form the core of what schools have to
offer.
Jim
Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the most
important thing is that all pupils are offered those subjects, rather
than all schools offering them? The learner is more important than the
institution.
Mr.
Gibb: That is the great theory: students can travel around
town, study French in one school and do a diploma in another. I am
afraid that the reality is that most sixth-form students will attend
one institution, preferring to spend their time studying rather than
travelling. There is also an additional concern about allowing core
subjects to drift out of some state comprehensives—namely, that
it is difficult to recruit
teachers in particular subjects if those subjects are not widely
available. All the subjects listed in the amendment are core subjects
as far as GCSEs are concerned, and if schools wish to recruit
chemistry, physics and maths teachers, they have to offer those
subjects at A-level as well as at GCSE.
Annette
Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the cost of
implementing the measures set out in the amendment would destroy small
sixth forms in community schools in my constituency that offer a very
limited range of subjects? It would be wrong to divert resources from
such schools. Typically, some students go to the local college to study
or to the grammar school to take an A-level. Community schools are
vital for young people who need to build their confidence and stay
within a smaller setting while having access to a wider range of
subjects. Such schools work very well and I would be unhappy to see
them
destroyed.
Mr.
Gibb: I do not accept that argument. The amendment does
not include subjects such as economics, but does contain subjects that
are an entitlement for children up to 16 in the pre-sixth-form stages
of secondary school. If maths, physics, chemistry, biology, history,
geography, a modern language or English are not offered in a school as
a whole, it is not complying with the law. It should therefore be a
minimum requirement for such subjects to be offered in the sixth form.
If we believe in spreading opportunity across all social classes and
all income backgrounds, we have to give people in the state sector the
same opportunities as those offered to students in the independent
sector.
Jim
Knight: I do not want to prolong this debate, but the
implication of what the hon. Gentleman says is that he thinks that all
schools should have a sixth form so that they can recruit great
teachers to teach those core subjects. That would result in a lot of
small sixth forms proliferating across the country: sixth-form colleges
would cease to be, A-level provision in further education colleges
would wither on the vine and there would be a huge cost to the
expansion of sixth-form provision in all of those maintained schools.
Has he costed that and has he had it agreed by the shadow
Chancellor?
Mr.
Gibb: There is nothing in the amendment that suggests any
of that; it just states that those schools that have sixth forms should
offer core, basic academic subjects. I am disappointed by the
Minister’s response, and responses throughout the debate,
because I expected him to say that he was concerned about how many
schools are not entering students for core subjects. For example, 15
per cent. of state secondary schools are not entering any student for
A-level geography. I expected him try to persuade the Committee that
the Government are tackling the problem and have it in hand.
My concern is
that this is just one snapshot set of figures. If we look at the trend,
it is moving away from academic subjects in state sixth forms. The
consequence of that will be a narrowing of opportunities for sixth-form
students in the state sector. That is a concern that we, as a party,
want to address, because it narrows opportunities and widens the gap
between students from wealthier backgrounds and those from poorer
backgrounds, which is unacceptable.
I
was partially reassured by the Minister’s response to amendment
261. He repeated the point that the Secretary of State will continue to
negotiate funding agreements and will ultimately determine whether an
academy sixth form is established, but he did use the phrase that
“they will determine the need in the local area.” The
Conservatives’ view is that that determination should be made by
the provider. If an academy believes that there is a need for a sixth
form in a locality, then that is the need established. The concern of
people, such as Dr. Moynihan, is that in some local authority areas
where there are surplus places in schools—because the quality is
very poor and parents are unhappy—it could be argued that there
is no need. My concern is that the Secretary of State will make the
decision that there is no need for sixth forms in those particular
areas. I am reassured by his answer, but only if the Secretary of State
believes that the need should be determined by the providers, and not
by some arbitrary means such as surplus
places.
Jim
Knight: Given that this Secretary of State has agreed to
the opening of more than 100 academies since he became Secretary of
State and that the vast majority of those have a sixth form, what
evidence has the hon. Gentleman got to suggest that this Secretary of
State is unwilling for academies to open sixth
forms?
Mr.
Gibb: The Secretary of State has reduced the freedoms of
academies, so they are not the same creature that they used to be. I
can cite evidence from people such as Dr. Moynihan who have experienced
problems of discrimination in localities when they have tried to
establish sixth forms. Under previous Secretaries of State they have
managed to establish those sixth forms despite that opposition. Given
the ambivalent views of the Secretary of State when he was an adviser,
there is more concern about whether the academies will go ahead in the
face of belligerent
opposition.
Jim
Knight: The hon. Gentleman should judge the Secretary of
State on his actions. I spoke to Dr. Moynihan yesterday to discuss the
latest academies opening in Croydon and to agree to further measures
that he wanted. They will open with sixth forms. The Harris academies,
along with others, are also opening new sixth forms under this
Secretary of
State.
Mr.
Gibb: We will see; the proof will be in the
pudding.
As far as the
amendments are concerned, I do not intend to press amendment 261 to a
vote. I will, however, test the views of the Committee on amendment
260, because we believe that those core academic subjects should be
available in all parts of the country and to all students, regardless
of their
background. Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
11.
| 
