| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 49 and 50. These amendments introduce five requirements before Schedule 1 and Clause 3 apply. It is the schedule, activated by Clause 1, which introduces the relaxation of controls over selection for county and voluntary schools. Controls over selection in grant-maintained schools are similarly relaxed by the clause.
Under the amendments those provisions could come into effect only in a given LEA area where the Secretary of State had designated. She could do so only where she was satisfied that selection would benefit that area and had come to that conclusion by testing the area against certain criteria. In addition, under the amendments designation could occur only after consultation with the relevant LEA, voluntary authorities and other concerned persons.
The criteria themselves pinpoint much of what is wrong with this insistence upon greater selection. The criteria need a little care. I shall deal with one or two of them and my noble friends will deal with others. I draw attention to the question of choice and diversity. Enhancing choice as well as diversity for all ranges of ability is one of the criteria. That cannot be achieved by more selection. Instead, the Bill will lead to large-scale selection and grammar schools by stealth through several routes.
Let us take, for example, the freedom to select up to the percentage limits in Schedule 1. The pressure of a domino effect, once selection is encouraged on the scale proposed, will be for schools to move to the maximum straight away in order to preserve their competitive position. They will all be scrambling in a somewhat undignified way for what look like the brightest boys and girls in the area, or, indeed, beyond the area. That domino effect will reach out from the school that goes first to all the others and is likely to bring in the highest rate of selection straight away.
In the grant-maintained sector under the new clause (the former Clause 3 which the Government seem keen to reintroduce, even though they were defeated twice in another place) the conjunction of increased selection with freedom to expand numbers each four years by up to 50 per cent. would mean--it needs no great mathematical ability to see this--that the overall number of grant-maintained selection places will increase substantially.
Under Schedule 1, paragraph 3(2), county and voluntary schools would then be able to select for all age groups within the school within their percentage limit, not just to move to or expand selection for the admission year group. County schools which wish to move to 100 per cent. selection and become grammar schools would be able to appeal to the Secretary of State over the head of the LEA under what seems to us to be a rather biased procedure, described in Schedule 1, paragraph 5, which favours the would-be grammar school over the interests of the community as a whole. Furthermore, 100 per cent. selection for sixth forms would become the statutory norm; that is Schedule 1, paragraph 3(1).
The direction set by the Bill is wholly opposed to retaining choice for the majority of parents for whose children selection will not lead to a place. It is those with whom I am concerned. The reality is that the parents of children who fail--I use that word advisedly--to be selected will be faced with fewer choices of school, if any at all, and the likelihood of longer travel to a school which is further away than the one which they would have preferred. The consequences in terms of the cost to public funds, moving them around, wasting pupils' and parents' time, and the safety and well being of pupils faced with long journeys have not been taken into consideration.
We all agree that the introduction of the 11-plus would be widely opposed if it were mooted--not least by middle-class parents who fear that a number of their children would fail. We believe that the Bill, led by Schedule 1 and Clause 3, threatens to reintroduce the 11-plus in many areas by a back door. That is why we are opposed to the Bill's proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has given an explanation of the first of the criteria that we are setting before areas can be designated as an area to which provisions of the Bill should apply.
Perhaps I may deal with the next criterion, which involves no loss of resources to the LEA and enables resources to be better targeted. Selection will drive up costs for LEAs. I speak as a leader of an LEA. They will face increased costs of moving pupils greater distances, a more complex admissions procedure and an appeals system. I speak from experience of that. I seriously doubt the statement in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that the changes are:
There is no evidence for that claim, but I hope that the Minister will be able to produce some evidence. It certainly flies in the face of all my experience of an LEA which still has a strongly selective increase. Any increase in costs is bound to mean a diversion of resources away from the classroom in ways which cause parents concern.
Another criterion proposed in the amendments is the enhancement of provision for pupils with special needs. Selection cannot achieve that. It moves precisely in the
Finally, the amendment seeks to promote the educational opportunities for all pupils in all areas. That point is important. Instead, resources, attention and a sense of achievement must necessarily attach to the more academically able. The effect of the school increasing its selective proportion may, depending on its geographical location, affect not only other schools in the authority's area but in some neighbouring authorities too. As regards voluntary aided schools, the effect may be even more widespread, disturbing the pattern of admissions over a considerable catchment area.
In proposing the amendments, we set out a number of criteria. I suspect that the Minister will not accept the amendments, but I shall be interested to know whether he accepts at least the criteria. If he does not agree with them as being desirable, I ask: why? If he agrees with them, how can they be achieved by the greater selection that is being proposed in the Bill? I support the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment. I speak partly on behalf of my noble friend Lord Baldwin, but more on my own account. An important proposal in the amendment is the reiteration of the necessity of working collaboratively with the local authority. I am not opposed to selection and therefore do not support the amendment on grounds directly connected with selection. Nevertheless, it is true that the more selective schools become, the fewer places there are for children of moderate or low ability, to say nothing of children with special educational needs.
One of the defects of the Bill is that the needs of such children, who make up a large proportion of school children, are not addressed. I refer not only to children with statements but children who for various reasons are of low ability. They used to be called the "Warnock 18 per cent.". I believe that they need particular attention.
Above all, it is a general principle that parents, although they should be able to choose selective schools, are not the best policy makers. There is no reason why they should make policy for a whole area covered by a local education authority. However, there must be someone, other than members of the funding authority, who understands the needs of a particular geographical area and who is consulted as a matter of first priority on any changes within the area. In concert with governors of grant-maintained schools, which are, after all, maintained schools, such a person should plan for the proper provision for all children.
One of the merits of the amendment is the setting out of criteria which should be agreed in general. The question is how the Bill as it stands will satisfy those extremely important criteria. I support the amendment on grounds of consultation and in terms of considering policy to meet those criteria.
Baroness David: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. In my Second Reading speech, I said
Baroness Young: In discussing the amendment, we return to the important question of whether to accept the principles of diversity and choice, in particular the principle of selection. I was interested to hear the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Pilkington in respect of Amendment No. 1 about what is done in other countries and why we should be different from any of the countries in Europe. We are trying to crack a difficult nut, which is the education of average and less average children.
A long time ago I was chairman of a local education authority which operated a tripartite system. There were some very good schools. I recall an extremely good secondary modern school. On looking back at all my educational experiences, I shall never forget going to the retirement of the headmaster of that school. He was absolutely adored by both the pupils and the parents. People used to queue up to try to get into that school. All the children were numerate and literate, beautifully disciplined and had no difficulty in getting a job.
Not all schools are like that and I do not pretend that they are. But a good school is made by a good head with sound principles. I see no reason whatever for thinking that because some schools are selective, there will never be a good head in any other school. That is a positive insult to the teaching profession. There are very good people who would regard it as a challenge to teach other children and, indeed, the late developers, many of whom are very intelligent and who come into the schools. There will be people who will wish to make those schools into very good schools.
When the tripartite system ended we were told that it was very bad. The argument was--and it has been repeated several times this afternoon--that 15 per cent. of the children did very well and 85 per cent. did very badly. Therefore, we were told that we should all go into comprehensive schools. When I was chairman of that education committee, I recall clearly the circulars to which my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith referred--1065 and 1066--which committed us all, without any real experience of comprehensive schools, to going comprehensive, and so the authority went comprehensive.
But the argument now is--and I do not believe that anybody can have any pleasure in saying this--and the point on which I thoroughly agree with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, is, that for average and less average children there are still failures in the comprehensive system. We are trying to deal with that. We still have the devastating statement that in comparison with many of our competitors, the average and less average children are
We find that, for better or for worse, the comprehensive system has not dealt with that problem and those children are still suffering. I believe that part of the problem is due to extraordinary teaching methods for mixed ability groups in schools and for reading. That has contributed to the problem. It is extremely important for children that we should get these matters right.
The really successful schools and the schools that are doing well bring up the standards of the rest. In my speech on Second Reading I referred to Northern Ireland, which most people regard as having the best education system in the United Kingdom. There they have grammar schools and selection. I do not say that that pattern should be repeated here, but, as far as I know, there is no evidence whatever to suggest that where grammar schools exist side by side with comprehensive schools, the average and less average children do worse. Indeed, there is some evidence to show that they are doing better.
Page 1, line 13, at beginning insert ("Where the Secretary of State has in accordance with subsection (10) below designated the area of a local education authority as an area within which it is for the time being to apply").
4 p.m.
"unlikely to have a significant financial effect".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page