Mr.
Gibb: If we look at any opinion poll over the past 20
years that lists the public issues of most concern, education is rarely
out of the top three. There are genuine reasons for that concern:
Ofsted reports, for example, that 43 per cent. of secondary schools are
not good enough or that one in five 11-year-olds leave primary school
still struggling with
literacy. At
the same time, the curriculum has been watered down and the rigour and
content of exams diminished. Much of that is driven by ideology, though
not always that of the Minister and her colleagues. Often, it is driven
by a child-centred John Dewey-type ideology, the dominant orthodoxy of
those who have reached prominent positions in the educational
establishment. The public are hugely anxious about such trends. I know
of many left-of-centre journalists who, against their own principles,
have taken their children out of the state sector because of such
concerns. That is fine for those who can afford it, but for most people
the state sector is the only option, hence people’s concerns in
the opinion
polls. Elected
politicians need to respond to those concerns, and need to be able to
respond. We all received the letter from the Minister which, with the
usual rigour and attention to detail that we have come to expect from
those involved in the Committee, was dated 23 March 2009—I know
it has been a long Committee, but not quite that
long. Mary
Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab): Is that how long the hon.
Gentleman will keep us
here?
Of
course we want Ofqual to be an independent regulator. I have already
set out my concerns about whether it will be independent of those who
are responsible for the problems with today’s educational system
and who seem determined to create more problems—those in the
educational establishment who put ideology ahead of evidence of what
works. We want Ofqual to be independent from ministerial interference
on issues such as grade boundaries, which has always been the position
of the QCA regulatory division, which would never countenance such
interference. I do not believe that there ever has been such
interference, either from this Government or previous Governments, but
Ministers must have reserve powers to set minimum standards. In a
democracy, when education is of such concern to the public, we cannot
remove from Ministers every lever to effect change that would raise
standards.
Mr.
Laws: My understanding of the hon. Gentleman’s
policy, which we were discussing earlier, is that the Conservative
party is happy for good-quality state-funded schools to opt out of the
national curriculum. How is that consistent with saying that there
should be this degree of central
direction?
Mr.
Gibb: When schools opt out of a system, in a system that
has plenty of surplus places and makes it easier for new schools to
enter into the state sector—as set out in our policy Green
Paper, “Raising the bar, closing the gap”—there
would be genuine choice to allow parents to choose a school. The
independent schools and independent sector are not subject to the
national curriculum and, notwithstanding that, the reason that they
still provide high-quality education—world class in the majority
of independent schools—is because the market forces them to
provide the high-quality education that parents
want. Our
state education system has to date been a state-provided system that is
not responsive to the needs of parents. It has no need to be. There are
few surplus places and one has to go to one’s local school, or a
school to which one is allocated—in theory one has a
choice, but in practice most parents do not have a genuine choice of
school. It is therefore important, under the current system, that
schools provide a curriculum and exam system that respond to the needs
of parents.
It is the
role of the state to replicate the market through things such as the
national curriculum. That does not mean that we want to regulate and
provide detail down to the last dot and comma, but national politicians
have a responsibility to ensure that public services that are directly
provided by the state respond as closely as possible to the needs of
parents. The only methodology through which parents can exercise such a
power at present is our elected democratic
process.
Mr.
Laws: May I explore the hon. Gentleman’s argument
further? Is he saying that he is happy for good quality state-funded
schools not to have to teach Shakespeare, for example, which is an
obligation under the national curriculum at present, and that such
schools should not be obliged to offer qualifications that would
include Shakespeare? Does he believe that such things should be left to
the market and to
preference?
Mr.
Gibb: No, I do not take that view. The state has a very
important role to play in providing examinations, and that is why we
agree with the power under clause 138 for the Secretary of
State to set minimum standards for assessments. If schools do not want
to take up the examinations or assessments provided by the state, they
will be able to turn to the marketplace. That is why the independent
sector is not required to set GCSEs for
schools. We
do not currently have a genuine marketplace within the state sector for
school provision. If we get to a position where parents have a genuine
choice—I mean a genuine choice, not a theoretical one—of
schools, it would be possible to relax the system, because, given what
we know from opinion polls about what parents want from schools, they
would not choose a school that does not teach Shakespeare or does not
provide exams.
Mr.
Laws: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument
about having a proper market and choice. He is saying that, even though
he wants the Secretary of State to have the power outlined in clause
138 to set minimum standards—in underperforming schools perhaps,
or at least until there is a market—he is willing for
state-funded schools not to be obliged to teach particular authors,
including Shakespeare, or to insist that students be examined on such
authors through GCSEs and other
qualifications.
Mr.
Gibb: The hon. Gentleman talks about a theoretical
position that I hope will be reached where parents have a genuine
choice of schools for their children. In such circumstances, they
should be able to choose. If they want a very progressive education for
their children that does not require academic rigour and study, there
is a case for allowing that under a system in which they can genuinely
choose. We are not currently in such a position, so we need to ensure
that our exam system is rigorous and has minimum standards. That is why
we agree with the power that the clause gives to the Secretary of State
to determine minimum requirements. The Bill does not determine maximum
requirements, only minimum
ones. According
to the explanatory notes, the Secretary of State’s power will be
used only in exceptional circumstances and
it “does
not allow the Secretary of State to make determinations relating to
parts of the qualification such as grading or assessment. Such matters
remain solely for Ofqual to
determine.” The
notes go on to
state: “The
Secretary of State intends to put in place a Memorandum of
Understanding with Ofqual about the use of this
power”. Those
issues were reiterated in the Under-Secretary’s letter of 14
March 2009 to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, to which
the hon. Member for Yeovil also referred. The fourth paragraph of that
letter states that the effect of clause 138 is in practice to limit the
role of Ministers by setting out what Ministers can
determine—the skills, knowledge or understanding which someone
must demonstrate in order to obtain a specified qualification. It says
that Ministers will not be able to decide, for example, on grading,
structures, assessment methods or how standards will be maintained, and
that they may express a view on these things from their policy
perspective, but the final decisions will be for
Ofqual. We
agree with that, but I understand the reasons behind the hon.
Gentleman’s amendments, particularly amendment 5, and his
general concerns, especially given that the Government are more
concerned about the message than genuine reform and higher
standards——nothing delivers a better message than exam
results rising year on year. Although we do not support
amendment 5, because I do not believe that Ministers have
ever sought to interfere with grade boundaries, absolute transparency
will be necessary when Ministers use the power in clause
138. 2
pm Amendment
233 would require Ofqual to publish in its annual report each of the
determinations published under clause 138(4), together with a note
setting out how it had responded. There should be no problem with a
Secretary of State, acting in good faith and trying to
ensure rising standards, being open in the use of this power. Giving
that determination maximum transparency and accountability would
strengthen Ofqual’s independence. Amendment 141, which deals
with clause 138 as well, would require Ofqual to set a minimum
requirement of knowledge that must be learned before the qualification
can be awarded. That returns to our earlier debate about knowledge
versus skills. However, it also relates to public concern about the
reduced quality of knowledge required to pass GCSEs. Last November, in
an article in The Sunday Telegraph, Terence Kealey
wrote: “Would
you like a GCSE in science? Don't worry, you may not need to know much
science actually to get one. Last Monday, Graham Stuart, the Tory MP
for Beverley and Holderness, read out to the Commons Select Committee
for Children, Schools and Families a question from a recent GCSE
science paper: “A nuclear power station is to be built. (1) It
will provide more employment in the area. But (2) any release of
radioactive material would be very dangerous. Which of these two
statements argues in favour of siting the nuclear power station in the
area?” Mr
Stuart then asked if “the department is really sure that we are
providing pupils with a rigorous scientific understanding?” But
he was answered by Jim Knight MP, the schools minister, with
“Yes. I am absolutely happy that we are, and we have set up
Ofqual to provide more public
reassurance.”” If
we have set up Ofqual to provide that assurance, let it do so, by
setting out clearly the actual knowledge required when setting pass
marks and grade
boundaries. The
same point applies to equivalencies. A merit in an International
Therapy Examination Council diploma in tanning treatments is worth 45
points—the same as a grade A in one A-level module. Speaking at
a recent seminar in London, Isabel Nisbet said that she has begun to
wonder whether it really stands up against A level maths and that it
seems to raise doubts about accrediting self-tanning courses as level 3
qualifications. She also said that her aide said that she chose it as
an example of the tough judgments that the watchdog should make.
Amendment 141 would help Ofqual to make those tough judgments and
choices.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I have listened to both hon. Gentlemen with
interest. Clause 138 has become something of a clause
cĂ(c)lèbre, if hon. Members will excuse the pun, and I want
to set out the Government’s position in light of that media
interest.
I can state
categorically and unashamedly that ministerial interest in the school
curriculum is not only legitimate, but necessary. That position has
been established since the launch of the national curriculum two
decades ago. This is not a sinister new development, as some have
suggested. Ministers need to be democratically accountable for the
curriculum. They need to be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and
explain, for example, how the curriculum is ensuring that the next
generation of young adults entering the work force will have the skills
that employers are looking for; how they are preparing young people to
play a full part in society when they grow up; how they are developing
the maths, science and foreign language skills required for future
economic prosperity, and how they are passing on to the next generation
the knowledge and understanding that we consider to be the rightful
inheritance and entitlement of every child—our history, culture
and knowledge of the world. That is a significant responsibility, and
Ministers must approach it wisely. They must listen to a range of
advice from the QCDA and elsewhere. They must allow teachers the space
to
exercise professional judgment within the requirements of the
curriculum, and they must not change it too rapidly. For a Government
to abandon their responsibility for the curriculum would be
extraordinary. Qualifications
are closely related to the curriculum. They are an assessment of a
learner’s attainments, reflecting what the learner has been
taught. Qualifications can help drive and focus teaching, which is why
they are so important when making educational policy. As with the
curriculum, it would be extraordinary for a Government to give up any
say in what qualifications should be
available.
Mr.
Laws: The Minister says that if, for example, she were to
accept the deletion of clause 138, the Government would have to give up
their powers in that respect. Under what legislation can Ministers
determine the content and structure of
exams?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The Secretary of State has wide-ranging
powers of control under existing legislation. He has the power to give
directions to the QCA on how it should exercise its functions,
including its function of setting criteria for the accreditation of
qualifications.
Mr.
Laws: The Minister did not say that the Secretary of State
has the power at the moment to determine the content or structure of
exams. I presume that that is why the letter to my hon. Friend the
Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said that it is a new
power.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: There is a power to direct the QCA under the
Education Act 1997, and the QCA is currently accountable to Ministers.
That is why we say that it is not a new
power.
Mr.
Laws: The power to direct is in relation to
what?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: As I explained, the power to direct the QCA
on how it exercises its functions includes its function for setting
criteria for the accreditation of
qualifications.
Mary
Creagh: I am listening with interest, but does the
Minister share my concerns about amendment 141? It considers
qualifications solely in respect of the knowledge that a person has.
When I was redesigning the master of business administration course at
Cranfield school of management with my colleagues, we considered
knowledge, skills and ability, but is not the true test of knowledge
how it is translated into action and how it is used in the workplace as
well, of course, as its value in and of
itself?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I thank the my hon. Friend for her
intervention. I shall come to that point
later.
Mr.
Laws: I grateful to the Minister for giving way; she has
been most patient. I am not convinced by her earlier answer. Surely she
is not going back on the statement that she made in her letter to my
hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. She clearly said
that there is currently no explicit statutory power to determine
“such
matters.”
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I refer the hon. Gentleman to section 26(1)
of the Education Act 1997, which states:
“In
carrying out their functions...the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority shall—(a) comply with any directions given by the
Secretary of State; and (b) act in accordance with any plans approved
by
him”. Those
are wide-ranging powers indeed.
| 
