Draft Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements for Fourth Key Stage) (England) Order 2012
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Boles, Nick (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
† Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff West) (Lab)
† Cryer, John (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
† Davies, Geraint (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
† Dunne, Mr Philip (Ludlow) (Con)
† Eustice, George (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
† Gibb, Mr Nick (Minister of State, Department for Education)
† Griffiths, Andrew (Burton) (Con)
† Jones, Graham (Hyndburn) (Lab)
† Leslie, Charlotte (Bristol North West) (Con)
† Love, Mr Andrew (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
† Moon, Mrs Madeleine (Bridgend) (Lab)
† Opperman, Guy (Hexham) (Con)
Qureshi, Yasmin (Bolton South East) (Lab)
† Raab, Mr Dominic (Esher and Walton) (Con)
† Rogerson, Dan (North Cornwall) (LD)
† Simpson, David (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Alison Groves, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
First Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 2 July 2012
[Mr Joe Benton in the Chair]
Draft Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements for Fourth Key Stage) (England) Order 2012
4.30 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements for Fourth Key Stage) (England) Order 2012.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. The Government’s underlying philosophy, as was set out in “The Importance of Teaching” White Paper in 2010, is that schools should have autonomy and freedom and that there should be less Government prescription. The removal of the statutory duty on schools to provide work-related learning as part of the national curriculum at key stage 4 will leave schools free to determine whether and how best to provide work-related learning for young people. This approach reflects the Government’s policy of reducing prescription and increasing professional autonomy for teachers and schools.
Removing the duty will therefore free schools to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum. It will allow them to be flexible in their provision for pupils. The Government consider work-related learning activities to be important, but that schools are best placed to decide what is appropriate to suit the needs and circumstances of their pupils.
In September 2010, the Secretary of State for Education commissioned Professor Alison Wolf of King’s College, London, to carry out an independent review of vocational education. Professor Wolf was asked to consider how vocational education for 14 to 19-year-olds could be improved to promote successful progression into the labour market or into higher level educational training. She was also asked to provide practical recommendations to help inform future policy direction, taking into account current financial constraints.
Professor Wolf’s report was published in March 2011 and the Department for Education’s response was published on 12 May. It accepted all her recommendations, including recommendation 21: for the Department to evaluate work experience models for 16 to 18-year-olds enrolled as full-time students and for reimbursing local employers flexibly. She also recommended that schools and colleges be encouraged to prioritise longer internships for older students, reflecting that few young people move into full-time employment at 16; and that Government should correspondingly remove the statutory duty to provide every young person in the fourth key stage with a standard amount of work-related learning. This is consistent with the Government’s approach to education reform in freeing up schools to determine what and how to teach.
Professor Wolf said that the provision of genuine work experience for post-16 students should be a priority for the Government. That approach is also consistent with repealing the duty on schools to provide a programme of careers education through the Education Act 2011 and replacing it with a new duty on schools to secure access to careers guidance. The strong links between career and work-related learning activities are recognised in the recently published statutory guidance that underpins this.
The Education Act 2011 inserts a new duty, section 42A, into part 7 of the Education Act 1997, requiring schools to secure access to independent careers guidance for pupils, which must include information on the full range of 16-18 education or training options, including apprenticeships and other work-based education. The new duty will apply to pupils in years 9 to 11 when it comes into force in September. Following the arguments raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells, the Government are currently consulting on extending the age range down to year 8 and to young people aged 16 to 18 in schools and further education colleges.
Extending access to independent and impartial careers guidance is something that I know the hon. Member for Wells fought hard for during the passage of the Education Act 2011, and I recognise that careers guidance should not simply cease when a young person reaches the age of 16. The Government are establishing arrangements that will ensure that young people and adults have access to expert, impartial guidance throughout their lives.
On the provision of work-related learning, the overall approach that I have outlined makes it sufficiently clear that the Government consider it to be important that schools are best placed to determine appropriate provision in accordance with the needs and circumstances of their pupils. Public consultation on removing the statutory duty on schools to provide every young person at the fourth key stage with work-related learning was launched on 6 October 2011 and closed on 4 January 2012. Most respondents did not agree with removing the duty. Of the responses to the question:
“Do you think that work related learning should be removed as a statutory duty?”,
some 89% answered no, while 9% responded yes. A further 2% were not sure. The Department will publish the consultation report later this week.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): The explanatory memorandum to the order refers to the consultation and states:
“The Department plans to publish the consultation report in June.”
Presumably that means June 2012 rather than June 2013. Why is that not available to the Committee today? After all, it is essential that we know the details of the consultation to be able to understand whether it is appropriate to pass the order.
Mr Gibb: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. The Department’s web system is experiencing technical difficulties. We hope that the issues will be resolved quickly so that we can publish the consultation report as soon as possible. I will ensure that a copy of the
report is sent to all members of the Committee tomorrow. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. We had intended to publish the report on the website today.Those who agreed that the duty should be removed felt that work-related learning was a huge organisational task and in many cases offered little meaningful reward. A one-size-fits-all duty would not benefit all. Respondents suggested that while it might be relevant for those who chose vocational training, it was less so for those on an academic pathway. Those who responded in favour of removing the duty also said that retaining the duty would force children to take placements in which they have no interest if their chosen interest could not be catered for. Someone noted, for example, that their child had wanted a placement in engineering but was only able to secure a week working in a shop.
Removing the duty would allow schools to be flexible in their provision for students who would genuinely benefit from work-related learning. It would also release some funds and resources that could be used to support independent careers advice. Some 10% of respondents who suggested that the duty should remain believe that alternative models of provision should be considered.
In the Government’s response to Professor Wolf’s review, we emphasised the need to ensure that all young people are able to gain experience and knowledge of the workplace. Genuine work experience is an important part of a student’s programme of study. We are committed to supporting schools and colleges to achieve that. We are currently evaluating the work experience trials for post-16 students, which are running in 25 colleges nationally. The report on phase 1 of the pilots will be available in the autumn.
In line with Government policy, we gave the colleges the freedom to decide on the model they wished to adopt in delivering their trial. We suggested five possible models and the freedom to design their own. A number of colleges are testing different approaches to the timings of work experience, and we have highlighted them as an area of priority for phase 2.
A separate trial is beginning to test a model for supported internships for students with learning difficulties or other disabilities. The 25 trials are providing interesting results even at an early stage, with some evidence of innovation and creativity, which will help us define what high-quality work experience looks like. They are also providing helpful information about what creates barriers to the provision of work experience.
I accept that the majority of respondents disagreed with the proposal to remove the duty to provide work-related learning at key stage 4. They believe that work-related learning has been valuable in giving young people an idea of the reality of the workplace, helping them to understand what would be expected of them by their future employers and potentially helping them to decide whether their chosen career was right for them.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): Recent research suggests that graduates take, on average, more than three years to find a job in their chosen discipline in university. Research among employers shows that one of the barriers to giving graduates jobs is that they do not have any experience. Is it not therefore a bit retrograde to remove the requirement to have some sort of work-related learning? Would it not be better just to
have a wide definition? Surely, we should define such learning according to the expressed interests of employers and the experience of newly qualified people?Mr Gibb: Nothing that I have said vitiates the importance of work-related learning. The purpose of the statutory instrument is to remove the duty on schools to provide that learning in order to give them the flexibility to do so.
Geraint Davies: So they need not provide it?
Mr Gibb: No. The order is about removing centralised prescription on schools. They can and should continue to provide work-related learning to the students who will benefit most from it, but the thrust of the Wolf report is that it is more important for work experience to take place post-16, and that our resources and priorities should be on such young people rather than those aged under 16. Nevertheless, where schools believe that it is important, it should continue to happen, but it should be up to schools to decide the extent to which it happens and the quality and type of work-related learning provided for those under 16.
We are clear that decisions about the use of resources should be made locally. Schools will still be free to determine whether and how work experience for young people at key stage 4 is provided, reflecting the Government’s policy of reducing prescription and increasing professional autonomy for teachers and schools. Schools have the choice to buy in services and, through the new duty to give pupils access to independent and impartial careers guidance, they will be expected to work in partnership with external and expert careers guidance providers to ensure that their students receive good advice on the full range of post-16 options. Employers are also being encouraged to take more responsibility for engaging with schools. The Institute of Education Business Excellence, which has a new role in helping to guide the system, is expanding its membership to schools. Schools are free to join the IEBE or the Education and Employers Taskforce to develop their capability, if they so wish.
Section 85 of the Education Act 2002 makes provision for the curriculum requirements of the fourth key stage. The national curriculum comprises the core subjects of maths, English and science; the foundation subjects of information and communication technology, physical education and citizenship; and the four entitlement areas of arts, design and technology, humanities and modern foreign languages. Pupils who elect to do so may study a subject from one or more of the four entitlement areas. Subsection (5)(a) covers the duty to provide work-related learning, which is defined in subsection (10) as
“planned activity designed to use the context of work to develop knowledge, skills and understanding useful in work, including learning through the experience of work, learning about work and working practices and learning the skills for work.”
In line with Professor Wolf’s recommendation, the order will remove subsection (5)(a), on work-related learning, from section 85.
The Government’s underlying philosophy, as set out in the White Paper, is that schools should have autonomy and freedom over the curriculum, and that there should
be less Government prescription. Schools will still be free to determine whether and how work experience for young people at key stage 4 is provided. That approach reflects the Government’s policy of reducing prescription and increasing professional autonomy for teachers and schools.Geraint Davies: Is not the danger that if schools that are generally very busy are not required to sort out work placements, which is a very time-consuming and varied task—they cannot just go through the normal learning process and timetable; they have to make a lot of effort to find appropriate workplaces—there will be a tendency for them just not to bother and for young people to lose out?
Mr Gibb: The Government are moving in the direction of travel of trusting professionals and increasing the accountability regime for schools, including by having a destinations measure in performance tables—it will be put in place in due course—setting out where young people are going on to, including whether that is to higher education or a sixth form. The philosophy is to increase accountability, but to give schools the autonomy and freedoms to provide the best education and experience for young people in their schools. Our approach is to move away from the previous Administration’s national strategies of prescription, and the order is one facet of that new autonomy for schools. On that basis, I commend it to the Committee.
4.45 pm
Kevin Brennan: May I first say what a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton? I thank the Minister for his explanation of the draft order. As he explained, it emerged out of the Alison Wolf report of last year. She recommended that the requirement to provide work-related learning at key stage 4 be removed on the grounds that resources would be better devoted to older children. She said that it would be better value for money to take the resources and devote them to 16-18 year olds. Can the Minister tell us what transfer of resources is taking place as a result of today’s measure—resources that would have been used at key stage 4 for work-related experience—to facilitate additional work-related learning at ages 16 to 18?
Will he also tell us what evidence exists for the assertion that fewer employers are willing to accommodate 14 to 16-year-olds on their premises, not least given the recent CBI survey that indicated enthusiasm for work-related learning for young people? It also emphasised the importance of employability skills. Many members of the Committee, including me, have taken on young people aged 14 to 16 from local schools on work experience. We have been willing—in fact, enthusiastic—to accommodate young people in our offices to give them a taste of the world of work and an insight into the work of a Member of Parliament. Does the Minister have any evidence that there is a lack of enthusiasm among employers, as Alison Wolf seems to suggest, to permit youngsters under the age of 16 to undertake work-related learning on their premises?
The Minister talked about the consultation that was held on the proposal. He indicated that out of the 567 responses—a fair number for a Government proposal—almost nine out of 10 answered no to the proposal. The consultation was launched on 6 October 2011 and it closed on 4 January 2012, and yet we do not have the report on that consultation in front of us today as we consider sweeping away the compulsion that currently exists for schools to provide work-related learning to youngsters aged 14 to 16 who are studying at key stage 4 in our schools. I asked the Minister earlier why the report was not available, not least since the Government’s own explanatory memorandum states that the Department planned to publish the consultation report in June. He did not specify which year; I will grant him that. That is an old civil service trick, but we can reasonably assume he meant June 2012, as the Minister confirmed earlier. Yet here we are on 2 July and we do not have the report in front of us.
I intervened on the Minister and asked him why we did not have the report in Committee so that it could inform our deliberations, and he told us that it was because of computer problems at the Department. In ministerial terms, that excuse is equivalent to “the dog ate my homework”. It is just not good enough for the Minister to ask the Committee to consider the matter and sweep away the compulsion at key stage 4 for young people to go on work-related experience. It is a very significant change in the law. He told us that in the consultation that the Government held at the back end of last year almost 90% of respondents disagreed with the Government’s proposal. However, we have no details about who the respondents to the proposal were, why they disagreed with it, why only 9% agreed, and why a further 2% were not sure. That is an overwhelming rejection of the Government’s proposal, yet we do not have the report in front of us today. We are being asked to take the proposal on trust and to put through an important change in the law without the information being made available to the Committee because of a computer problem. If there is a genuine computer problem, which I understand is possible, it prompts the question of why the report was not published in a more timely fashion and why the information could not be provided in hard-copy form—I presume that the Department still has some photocopiers and printers—at least to members of the Committee, so that we could have all the pertinent information before us this afternoon.
Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that children at the ages of 14, 16 and 18 are on a vast and profoundly important journey? They are determining, first of all, what GCSEs they will do. That will affect what A-levels they will do, and they will go off on a trajectory that will determine their life chances. It is therefore important for them to get a taste of different sorts of work experience, whether it is in the arts or science, to give them some sort of insight to make those choices. Given the outcomes of the research that we have done on the proposals, things are negative. Given that we do not have the information, would it not be right at least to bide our time and wait to make the decision correctly, rather than in haste?
Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is right. The whole reason why the duty was introduced in 2003 or 2004 was because of the value of work-related experience to
youngsters at the age of 14 to 16. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson at the time, the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), welcomed the compulsory status of work-related learning. He said that it had the potential to become one of“the most exciting areas of the curriculum”.—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 10 November 2003; c. 10.]
He also said that it was important to have examples of good practice. Work-related learning was valued at the time not just by the Labour Government but by Liberal Democrats. As I recall, the Tory spokesperson at the time did not mention work-related experience in his response to the proposals from the then Government.
It is rather surprising that we are here today without the information in front of us. I am pleased to hear that we will get it tomorrow, but we are being asked to vote on the measure today, not tomorrow. Giving us the information tomorrow is absolutely pointless. It is rather reminiscent of what Bismarck once said—this was repeated by Leo, the famous chief of staff of President Bartlett in “The West Wing”—that one should never see how two things are made: laws and sausages. In this case, the mess in relation to how we are changing the law today without having the appropriate information before us is pretty shambolic; perhaps we can add it to the omnishambles that we have seen in other areas. I have made the point: the Minister has heard it, and he will want to respond to it.
Another relevant technicality is that the measure does not meet the commitments made to the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee of the House of Lords. The Government mention that, and they give their excuses in the explanatory memorandum. The Committee requires the Government to give schools a full term’s notice of a requirement to implement statutory instruments. The Minister is arguing that the order does not have to fulfil that obligation because it removes, rather than imposes, a duty on schools. The Committee does not make that distinction, and there is a reason why: schools have been making plans, undertaking preparations and devoting resources to arranging work experience in the next term for students up and down the country. All that work is being put to waste because the Government are introducing this statutory instrument without giving the due and proper notice that the Committee requires.
Why has the Minister failed to follow the requirements of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee? It is not the first time that the Government have done so. Do the Government regard such a procedure as an optional requirement, or is it something that the Government intend not to do ever again? Do they acknowledge that a lot of work has been undertaken in making preparations for work experience which will now be put to waste as a result of their failing to follow the requirements of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee?
Judging by Ofsted’s surveys in this area, some schools are doing excellent work in relation to work-related learning. In fact, the Ofsted reports are still available, although they are quite difficult to get hold of because the Government have removed them from the easily accessible parts of their website and put them in their archive areas. None the less, they are available, and new ones are being published. I was looking at one recently
from Wembley technology college, which was published in 2012 on the Ofsted website. The head teacher is quoted as saying:“The school sees work-related learning and the development of employability skills as entitlements for all students. It ensures that all staff are involved, so that every curriculum area provides opportunities for students to develop related skills, and demonstrates and celebrates achievement.”
Is there not a danger that in taking away the requirement for schools to do that, that entitlement for all students to have access to work-related learning will be lost? The Minister hinted at that when he said, I think, that it should happen for “some” students. Does he have any view on what proportion of students will still undertake work-related experience at key stage 4 if the measure is introduced?
Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend share my concern over those not in education, employment or training? They should be given every opportunity to get an idea of the experience of work so that they can consider whether they want to go forward with that or do some more education. Again, this seems a mandate for good schools to be supported and for poorer schools to be allowed to get worse, which is typical.
Kevin Brennan: I share my hon. Friend’s concern that work-related learning may be seen at key stage 4 as a second-rate type of activity, which is why I asked the Minister what proportion of students are likely to be offered work-related learning opportunities following the introduction of the measure.
Will the chief inspector of schools continue to report on what schools are doing for work-related learning for 14 to 16-year-olds? What does the Minister expect to happen to that work if he is giving out a signal that it will have no national recognition because only what is assessed is to be valued?
Mr Gibb: I just want to take up the hon. Gentleman on the issue of only what is assessed is to be of value. That is precisely the point that we are trying to move away from. The whole school curriculum is important, not just the issues that are assessed. The national curriculum review is focused on ensuring that a core body of knowledge is taught. However, we are trying to emphasise the fact that the general direction is to look at the whole school curriculum and not to prescribe every detail. That is the distinction we are trying to draw. Both parts of the curriculum are equally important.
Kevin Brennan: I understand the philosophy behind what the Minister is trying to achieve, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We need to know what happens, and what he expects to happen, to work-related learning as a result of the measure.
Does the Minister intend to return with further proposals in the near future to change the national curriculum at key stage 4? Will he confirm that it is still not Government policy to make modern foreign languages compulsory again at key stage 4? We are extremely concerned that the Government are ignoring the message from business and schools, and from young people themselves: they value work-related learning. It is regrettable that the Government are removing the statutory requirement on
schools to provide work-related experience at a time when businesses say that young people need that crucial experience more than ever. The Government give the impression that they are taking their foot off the pedal and failing to take seriously their obligations to provide opportunities for young people to gain the experience expected of them when they enter the labour market.Taken alongside the turmoil over careers advice in schools, the proposed return of CSEs, which the Secretary of State recently leaked to the Daily Mail, and today’s written ministerial statement, which appeared elsewhere, on removing the obligation on employers to check if 16 to 18-year-olds are in training or to accommodate training by adjusting working hours, the Government are giving a strong, negative signal about the importance of good-quality, work-related learning for young people. Will the Minister explain how the order will help, rather than hinder, young people into the world of work?
5.2 pm
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Benton. Coincidentally, I have two students on work experience in my office in the Commons this week: Jessica Callaghan from Essex—her grandfather is a constituent—and Annabel Storr from Sir James Smith’s school in Camelford. In Annabel’s case, I went with the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, which represents health and safety professionals, to look at what the school was doing in advance of the children’s work experience—as it was called when I did it.
Reflecting on my work experience, I have to say that it was not the best. Casting my mind back, it would have been in the late ‘80s or early ‘90s, and although it was not compulsory, the school certainly regarded it as such and wanted us all to do it. I went somewhere I did not particularly want to go and my week was not really fulfilling, challenging or interesting to me. I was with an excellent company, which still does good things in my constituency, but it was not for me. I knew that I did not want to carry out those duties, and one could argue that that was experience in itself.
Reflecting on the statutory instrument, it does not say that quality work experience or experience of the workplace is bad, but that rigidly prescribing exactly when and how it should happen is not the best way to go. As the Minister said, the order is consistent with what the Government have said about greater freedoms for schools to look at how best to serve the interests of the young people they educate.
We must look at the topic in a broad context. In common with the careers guidance that my hon. Friend the Member for Wells requested in the Education Act 2011 Bill Committee, and to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks, should we extend such experience to lower down in schools? If it is appropriate to the young people in question, there should be an opportunity to build relationships between local employers and schools. There tend to be strong relationships between employers and colleges, but perhaps less so between some schools and employers, and more could be done. To say that placements must be done in a week or a fortnight, in a
particular way and at a particular time is not necessarily the best way to go. It will not suit all students or all local circumstances.It is also important to provide employers with opportunities to get into schools, whether it be through projects or by showing what activities are going on in their local area. That could pay dividends, particularly in relation to manufacturing, because young people often have an outdated opinion of what it entails. They think that it involves dirty, menial tasks and that it would not give them the opportunity to progress and have a good career. In those areas where manufacturing exists and is growing, we ought to get the employers into the schools to offer inspiration and to develop a fruitful relationship that encourages young people to get involved in such careers.
I always listen to what the hon. Member for Cardiff West has to say about any change proposed by the Government, and I hear what he says about the positive stories, but it is fair to say that there are also a number of negative stories involving some young people who have not been inspired or motivated.
Kevin Brennan: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is about to draw his remarks to a close by saying that he will vote with the Government, but before he does so and given that he does not have all the information that he should have, is he content to make that decision?
Dan Rogerson: The Minister has expressed his displeasure about the fact that we do not have all the information, and he will want to ensure that that does not happen too often. In fact, in the past he has made sure that information has been available to be shared. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the circumstances are regrettable, but to return to my point about young people’s experiences not always being positive, I hope that, by using the pilots and the initiatives that have already been mentioned—although I realise that there is no mention of a formal review process in the explanatory notes—the Minister will be able to advise schools on best practice, so that we can reinvigorate the process, overcome the difficulties mentioned by Professor Wolf in her review, and ensure that young people’s good experiences provide inspiration and are a strong part of their education as they prepare for work. If we provide the information to parents, young people and governors, they will challenge the schools to make sure that they do their very best. It is by following that route, rather than that of central prescription, that we will make progress in a much better and more positive way.
5.7 pm
Mr Gibb: This has been a useful, if short, debate. The Wolf report says:
“Providing 16-18 year olds with work opportunities is the top priority. Of course, helping younger pupils to understand and experience the workplace is valuable: but value-for-money and setting priorities are always important, and especially at a time of financial stringency. Fewer and fewer employers are willing to accommodate young people under 16 on their premises; and the paperwork associated with placements has increased exponentially.”
That is one of the reasons why Professor Wolf made her recommendation. She goes on to say:
“For that reason the blanket requirement to give all KS4 pupils ‘work experience’…has served its time. It is very expensive: typically, for a school, the equivalent of at least half a full-time senior
teacher’s salary a year plus substantial administrative support. Too often, now, this does not even involve being in a workplace, as schools admit defeat and arrange something ‘work-related’…on school premises.”“DfE should evaluate models for supplying genuine work experience to 16-18 year olds who are enrolled as full-time students. Schools and colleges should be encouraged to prioritise longer internships for older students, reflecting the fact that almost no young people move into full-time employment at 16; and government should correspondingly remove their statutory duty to provide every young person at KS4 with a standard amount of ‘work-related learning’.”
I will run through some of the issues that have been raised. In reference to Professor Wolf’s point about ensuring that resources are prioritised properly, the hon. Member for Cardiff West asked what transfer of resources had taken place. The Government are spending £4.5 million over the next two years in a pilot programme to test the new models of approaches to work experience for 16 to 18-year-olds.
The hon. Members for Swansea West and for Cardiff West asked about evidence and employability. Work-related learning allows students at key stage 4 to develop knowledge, skills and understanding that is useful in the workplace, but it has never been a pathway into paid employment. As Alison Wolf said, and I will say again, almost no young people today go into full-time employment at age 16.
Geraint Davies: The Minister says that hardly anybody enters employment at the age of 16, but will he tell the Committee, perhaps with advice from his civil servants, what is the percentage who do? Should those who do intend to go into employment—a significant number—have a special facility to enable them to have that sort of experience prior to leaving school? Even if it is only for them, they will be able to make a decision about where to work, or indeed be encouraged to do more studying.
Mr Gibb: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. His colleague, the hon. Member for Cardiff West, asked what percentage of students the Government think will be entitled to or should participate in work-related learning at key stage 4, but we do not have a percentage in mind. It could be 100% of students at a school, or far fewer. It will be up to the professional judgment of the school head teacher or head of year to determine the best curriculum for students at that school.
In 2009-10, 94% of 16-year-olds were enrolled in education or apprenticeships. That is a very high percentage which, one could argue, is a tribute to the achievements of the past. It could also be argued that it is a feature of the youth labour market which has, according to Alison Wolf, been severely damaged over the years. Therefore, that figure is either a good thing because more young people are staying in education or training, or a feature of what is happening to the youth labour market, or a combination of both.
Geraint Davies: I am grateful for the Minister’s enormous generosity in giving way again. Does he agree that for the 6% who will be entering the labour market with few qualifications—a significant number of people—special provision should be made before the age of 16 to provide them with experience of which path to take, and possibly also encourage them into training?
Mr Gibb: Again, I do not want to substitute my judgment for that of hundreds of thousands of highly professional teachers up and down the country who will make those judgments on behalf of young people in those schools. It could be that they and their pupils believe that work-related learning may be in a pupil’s interest, not withstanding the fact that they are going to continue in education until the age of 18, 20 or 21. Other schools may take a different view on their approach to the right curriculum for those children aged 14 to 16, and it may not depend on whether they leave education at 16, 18 or 21.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked what evidence exists to show that employers are reluctant to take on 14 to 16-year-olds. In addition to her other points, early in her report Professor Wolf stated:
“Most employers interviewed for this Review also confirmed their reluctance to take on 16 and 17 year olds as apprentices, citing health and safety concerns which must also, one assumes, apply to the shrinking number of ‘normal’ hires.”
One assumes that the same issue would apply, perhaps even more so, lower down the age range.
I apologise that the summary of the consultation was not available for the Committee because we genuinely intended to make that available today. I have read out the essence of the results of the consultation, but technical problems have resulted in it not being available as planned. We did not foresee that, and I accept that we should have planned it better. I will ensure that the report is sent out by tomorrow at the latest.
I am conscious that the timing of the order does not meet the commitment, which was made to the Merits Committee, to give schools a full term’s notice of a requirement to implement a statutory instrument. I particularly conscious of that commitment, because it was one that I gave to the Chairman of that Committee. However, the order has the effect of removing, rather than imposing, a duty. I therefore consider it to fall outside the spirit of the commitment. We want to remove duties as soon as possible. If we were imposing a new, onerous duty that had to be fulfilled by a school, and which was taking effect by September, then I think the hon. Gentleman would have a point. However, we are removing a duty in this instance, and I believe it falls outside the spirit of the commitment I gave to that Committee.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West raised the issue of Ofsted’s views on work-related learning. Ofsted says that the provision of work-related learning by schools is variable. It published a survey report in 2011 that found that, although provision for work-related learning was good in about half of the schools visited, it was inadequate in about one fifth.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the percentage of students who should take work-related learning. I think I have responded to that. It really could be any percentage, depending on the views of the experts—teachers and head teachers in schools.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about modern foreign languages at key stage 4. We shall make an announcement about the content of the secondary national curriculum, including modern foreign languages, shortly. However, as a consequence of the English baccalaureate, we have seen a rise in the proportion of year 10s opting for modern foreign languages. That is the first rise in many
years. As a consequence of the decision, taken by the previous Administration in 2004, to end compulsory modern languages, the number of young people taking modern languages plummeted from approximately 79% in the early 2000s to as low as 43% last year. That is now beginning to rise as a direct consequence of the new performance measure of the English baccalaureate.I think I have answered all the questions asked by members of the Committee—
Geraint Davies: Does the Minister agree that there is a contradiction in what he has just said on compulsion? He is actively encouraging people to have to take up modern languages, suggesting some sort of compulsion in the baccalaureate, but a moment ago he said that there would not be any compulsion. He also said that only one fifth of school placements into work are substandard, so does he agree that the good is not the enemy of the best, and that the focus should be on making that one fifth work, given that four fifths are working?
Mr Gibb: First, the views of Ofsted were not the driving force that led to the statutory instrument. I was merely responding to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff West about Ofsted’s opinion. This is driven by recommendation 21 by Professor Wolf.
Secondly, in terms of prescription versus encouragement, the English baccalaureate is not an accountability measure; it is a performance measure that parents take notice of. The whole essence of our reforms is to give more freedom to professionals in running their school, and to improve and enhance the accountability measures and the data available to the public to scrutinise what is happening in our schools. In many ways, that is more powerful than mere compulsion.
Kevin Brennan: There was just one more point that I asked the Minister about. In his annual report, will the chief inspector continue to report on what schools are doing for work-related learning with 14 to 16-year-olds?
Mr Gibb: I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that issue. I accept that I did not respond to that point, and I will write to him in due course.
On that basis, I ask the Committee to confirm that it has considered the statutory instrument.
Kevin Brennan: We do not support what the Government are doing in sweeping away work-related learning compulsion at key stage 4 for 14 to 16-year-olds. Although the Government could not give us a figure, I believe that it will have a significant impact on the opportunities for young people at key stage 4, between the ages of 14 and 16, to have any work-related learning in our schools. I will therefore ask my hon. Friends to oppose the measure.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 5.
AYES
NOES
Question accordingly agreed to.
That the Committee has considered the draft Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements for Fourth Key Stage) (England) Order 2012.