| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Warnock: This is a very important amendment because, unlike the selection issue, there is quite obviously here a case where other schools and sixth-form colleges should be taken into account seriously before an expansion of non-compulsory schooling is allowed.
It is well known that the fragmentation of sixth forms is very harmful in the sense that a small sixth form does not offer the choice which a large sixth form of a sixth-form college offers. This amendment would prevent uncontrolled and unplanned expansion of various small sixth forms which would be harmful to the pupils' education.
Lord Tope: I support the amendment. It is extremely important to try to make clear this system in what cannot be an unfettered market place. It is undeniably true that the development of sixth forms without consultation and without being part of a planning process could have a significant effect on a range of other providers of post-16 education, whether that be other schools, the local further education college, the TEC or most particularly, sixth-form colleges.
The development of a small sixth form, or even a larger sixth form, could, if unplanned and without consultation or reference to the wider considerations, have a very serious effect in a comparatively short time on the well-being of a number of sixth form colleges and other providers. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is not to try to prevent it happening but to ensure that it happens in a planned way and with proper and thought-through consultation. I support the amendment.
Baroness Young: One of the success stories of recent years in education, which has not been referred to in the course of our debates, is the number of children staying on after the statutory school-leaving age. I think that I am right in saying that it is now something like 70 per cent. Perhaps the Minister will confirm those figures. That is a remarkable achievement and one with which we must all feel a great sense of satisfaction on all sides of the Chamber. It is not so long ago that the proportion was about 30 per cent. Therefore, from the point of view of the pupils concerned, that is a tremendous achievement. It means that they are going on to some form of further education, which is highly desirable.
I may not have understood this part of the Bill correctly, but it seems to me that in giving that added freedom to schools--and we are now talking about post-16 education, so it is those pupils over the compulsory school-leaving age--we are allowing them, if they so wish, either to develop or to expand a sixth form. That could well be seen as an opportunity to encourage more pupils to stay on beyond the age of 16.
It is desirable to have a great deal of variety. I am a supporter of further education colleges and sixth-form colleges but some pupils would prefer to stay on at school and they might well be encouraged to do so were the sixth form at their school to expand.
I take the point that there are dangers in relation to a small sixth form, but that will be something which the school will have to consider. The cost of a small sixth form is very considerable and the school may not feel that it is worth while. On the other hand, to deny schools the opportunity to expand their sixth forms in that way, if they wish to do so, cannot possibly help the situation of encouraging more pupils to stay on beyond the school-leaving age.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Life is strange; indeed, it is full of surprises. In supporting the amendment, I should point out that we are not actually arguing within its terms against schools being able to develop sixth forms; we are arguing against them being able to develop sixth forms without proper consideration being given to the effects on other providers of education for 16 to 19 year-olds.
I begin to feel so old. I say that because for many years successive Secretaries of State gave local authorities and local authority chairs of education advice and guidance on how to rationalise the use of resources. Those of us who were involved with local authorities were encouraged to attend highly unpopular meetings throughout the country and point out--indeed, I remember very clearly conversations with the late Lord Joseph when he was Secretary of State--that small unviable sixth forms had two inbuilt snags.
One of those snags was that the group sizes of the students may suit the teacher but were not in the best interests of the pupils because, at that age and stage, pupils learn from one another. There is a need for a reasonably sized group to enable the young people to learn alongside one another. Secondly, in the interests of having the cachet of a sixth form, schools were actually denuding funding from lower down the school and often from the pupils who needed most help--indeed, the tail that we have referred to so often today--and using it because of the prestige value of the sixth form.
So a huge exercise was undergone. The general experience has been that the development of sixth form and tertiary colleges has contributed more than anything else to the increase in the staying-on rate. There is a clear correlation between the two and marked increases in staying on. In areas, for example, where there were a large number of Church schools--whether Anglican or Catholic--with sixth forms attached to each school, they were encouraged to rationalise. As I said, the amendment does not seek to prevent that sixth-form development from going ahead; it very reasonably seeks to ensure that there is proper discussion about it.
Some teachers prefer teaching sixth-form pupils. But if a school cannot make a case for undertaking a viable project in terms of sixth-form pupils and developing a viable range of subjects so that young people are not
encouraged to take inappropriate subjects or specialise too narrowly, we are failing our young people. I believe that this is one of the most reasonable amendments to come before the Committee. I am sure that such a reasonable person as the Minister will stand up and say that he cannot but agree.
Lord Henley: I thought for a glorious and brief moment that the noble Baroness, on her own, had actually understood what the amendments were about. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, certainly did not seem to understand what they were about. However, there it is. The amendments are not about setting up sixth forms; they are only about selection within existing sixth forms. When we reach Clause 4 and the power that grant-maintained schools will have to set up sixth forms, perhaps we can discuss such matters. As I said, these amendments are not about that. They are about selection within sixth forms.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 and Section 265B of the 1996 Education Act (inserted by Clause 3 of this Bill) deal with cases where publication of statutory proposals is not required for changes in selective admissions to LEA and GM schools respectively. These provisions follow on from paragraph 2 and Section 265A, which provide that, if there is any change in the proportion of selective admissions which makes the school cross the relevant threshold, statutory proposals must always be published. Paragraph 3 and Section 265B introduce two exceptions. Neither of those cases would result in significant changes in the character of a school. So they would not, under present law, require the publication of statutory proposals. I shall spell out for Members of the Committee the first exception which relates to sixth-form admissions. Schools will not need to seek central approval for changes in proportion of selective admissions to sixth forms, even though these might cross the relevant threshold. For many schools this is not an issue, because the sixth form is made up entirely of pupils coming up through the school. It is only an issue for schools that admit pupils at age 16, and the number of admissions at that age is usually very small.
Entry to sixth forms, whether from within or outside the school, has traditionally been on a selective basis. We discussed that matter earlier when I said, quite obviously, that GCSE results were relevant to some extent to entry into the sixth form. The department has always taken the view that changes in selection arrangements for a sixth form do not significantly change the character of the school. Amendments Nos. 19 and 56 seek to remove that exception. The effect will be to require publication of statutory proposals in circumstances where, I submit, a school's character had not changed. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. He will no doubt wish to return to the issue when we reach Clause 4.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I have just been leafing through my speech and I do not believe that I talked about setting up new sixth forms; I was talking about a significant change in existing sixth forms and how that would affect the position of other providers of tertiary education in the area. The nub of the question
which the Minister completely avoided is: why should the criteria for sixth forms be different from that of other groups within the school system?I should like now to address the point raised by Lady Monkswell; I am sorry, I meant to say the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am not sure to whom I should address my apology.
However, I should like to raise a point with the noble Baroness. Surely we all agree that variety in an area is the desirable objective. Surely some degree of review and planning--the two words which the party opposite seem to cower away from--should ensure that variety of provision is kept. I believe that the Minister should address himself to the issues of why there is a difference as regards post-16 and pre-16, and what will ensure that the variety continues. However, as I can see no favourable reaction from the Minister, I feel obliged to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page