| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Henley: The Bill gives the admission authorities greater flexibility to introduce or extend selection without central approval. That will promote diversity by giving schools greater flexibility to respond to what parents want. Amendments Nos. 12 and 52 would require the governing bodies of Church of England and Roman Catholic voluntary and grant-maintained schools to obtain written consent from the relevant diocesan board or diocesan authority before using the new freedoms to introduce or extend selection up to the relevant thresholds. We believe that this goes against the deregulatory intention of the Bill by replacing the Secretary of State's approval with that of diocesan authorities. It would also mean that governing bodies in the case of aided, special agreement and grant-maintained schools would no longer be solely responsible for determining admission arrangements for their own schools.
The diocesan authorities are represented on the governing bodies of Church schools by foundation governors. At voluntary aided, special agreement and ex-voluntary grant-maintained schools foundation governors make up the majority of the governing body. They are the appropriate medium through which the diocesan authorities can exercise influence over Church schools. The Bill requires admission authorities to consult before introducing or extending selection up to the threshold. We have made it quite clear that the Secretary of State will issue guidance on consultation. We shall no doubt be discussing consultation later on. That will set out the Secretary of State's expectation that diocesan boards would be consulted in the case of Church schools. The amendments represent an unacceptable restriction on the power of Church schools to vary their admission arrangements. I therefore hope that the right reverend Prelate will not feel it necessary to press them.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 20 and 57. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 provides that county and voluntary schools will not need to seek central approval for any changes in the proportion of pupils admitted to their sixth form by selection. Section 265B, in Clause 3, does the same for grant-maintained schools. That is not an issue for many schools as their sixth forms are made up entirely of pupils coming up through the school. It is only an issue for those schools that admit pupils at the age of 16. The number of admissions at that age is usually very small. Entry to sixth forms, whether from within or outside the school, is traditionally on a selective basis and obviously depends to some extent on a pupil's GCSE achievements. The department has always taken the view that changes in the proportion of pupils selected to a sixth form does not significantly change the character of the school. Under current law, even ignoring the Bill, changes would not require central approval. The Bill confirms that position.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 57 would therefore require the governing bodies of Church schools to seek diocesan approval in cases that at present do not require central approval. That goes against the deregulatory nature of the Bill. I therefore hope that the right reverend Prelate will not press those amendments.
The right reverend Prelate also asked whether the Bill contains separate provisions on the right of schools to hold places empty. I can assure him that it does. Clause 27, to which I understand we will not be coming today, provides that schools may not in general refuse to take children if they still have empty places available. The only exception to that rule is schools which select all of their pupils by high ability or aptitude or by denomination.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, in particular for his response to my query about schools that are under-subscribed. I am bound to say that I am not entirely satisfied by the argument that governing bodies contain representatives of the diocesan board of education or appropriate authority, because normally they are in a tiny minority. It could well be that they would find great difficulty in arguing their case. Nevertheless, I shall study with great attention what the Minister has said. I beg leave at this stage to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 10:
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 54, 135 and 137. The issue of not using baseline assessment is covered by Amendments Nos. 135 and 137. I shall refer to them briefly at this stage but I may wish to return to them when we reach their places in the Marshalled List.
The purpose of the amendments is to press the Government on their attitude towards selective admissions at primary school age. Thus far in our discussions, here and in another place, there has at the very least been confusion with regard to the Government's real intentions on the issue of selection and primary education. The Prime Minister has spoken of a grammar school in every town and the Secretary of State has written about the logic of the grammar school. Increasingly, selection is being promoted. It is proposed that only secondary school governors will discuss annually whether or not to increase selection. It is therefore rather strange that Clause 1 speaks only of schools and Schedule 1 excludes only nursery schools from being covered by the Bill. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.
We welcome the exclusion of nursery schools from the selection of children by ability. I can see the Minister smiling at the idea of pupils being selected on grounds of ability or aptitude. In a small but important number of cases there is a problem with regard to the availability of pre-school education for children who are showing quite marked behavioural and emotional difficulties. I refer not only to those who are sometimes regarded,
However, leaving that to one side, this amendment seeks to extend to primary schools the exclusion from Schedule 1 which deals with selection by aptitude or ability. I hope that it is not going to be necessary to rehearse in full the issues which argue very strongly against selection at primary school age. At this stage I refer to them by heading only, but I shall return to them if the Minister's reply indicates that we face the prospect of the Government supporting selection by ability at primary school age. Young children develop at different rates. It is true, of course, that there are late developers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the varying stages at which children develop and, quite obviously, that is more marked when the children are very young. There is also a greater opportunity for children to be selected at this early age on the basis of their background before they have had access to formal education. Selection in the primary sector is much more likely to disadvantage those children for whom English is not their mother tongue and who will have had perhaps little opportunity to express themselves in English before starting school. There is the issue of motivation if children are going to be seen by themselves--or, perhaps more importantly at that stage, by their parents--as having failed to measure up to some arbitrary standard. The majority of parents wish their children to have access to the local primary school. There are the problems of collection of children and so on. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and hope that I shall not need to go through the detailed reasons as to why selection on the ground of ability at the age of five or in primary education would not make educational sense. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I support this amendment and do so with as much interest as that of the noble Baroness in awaiting the Minister's reply. Most of the debate in this Chamber, in the other place and, indeed, publicly, has focused either directly or by implication on selection for secondary schools. I have no doubt that we shall continue to discuss that vigorously in this Chamber.
I suspect that, in the wider world, very few people have yet come to realise that this Bill actually permits--it may be even encourages--selection by ability or aptitude from the age of five. I believe that it is probably one of the least recognised aspects of this Bill. I find it almost inconceivable that that is the Government's intention. Are they actually intending that children at the age of five or just before, should be selected as to whether they go into an academic stream in their primary school? The noble Baroness has given the headlines for the reasons to object to selection at five and I endorse all of them. They are very important. All
There is at least strong doubt whether one can select children by ability at the age of 11 and I would have thought it demonstrably the case that one cannot at five years say how a child is going to develop. Children at the age of 11 can be adversely affected by the home background and at the age of five that must be dramatically more the case. The children are affected by the home background or by the early years of learning which they may or may not have received. If English is not their first language, then at the age of five they are enormously disadvantaged and very unlikely to succeed in choice by ability or aptitude although in no way will that measure their ability or aptitude.
It is inconceivable that we are knowingly about to embark on a course that allows primary schools to select 20 per cent. of their pupils by aptitude or ability. I simply cannot believe that that is the Government's intention and I hope that that will be confirmed to us very shortly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, made some good points earlier on about local schools and the community. I am sure that she will agree that primary schools in particular are a part of their local community in every sense. Siblings go to the primary school. There is no question of selecting them by ability or any other method. If we are going to introduce such divisive measures into primary schools then that will very quickly destroy their ethos and all that is good about so many of them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that that is not the Government's intention and that they are either going to accept these amendments or bring forward others that will make that crystal clear.
Page 54, line 25, at end insert ("primary or").
5.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page