| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 21:
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 21 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 58. The amendments deal with the Bill's intention to allow schools to extend their age range or begin admitting pupils at a different age and to increase selectivity at the same time. This part of the Bill allows schools, in certain circumstances, to admit pupils by selection for ability or aptitude up to certain thresholds without having to publish proposals in order to gain approval for a significant change of character. Where those thresholds are crossed--that is, where the proportion of selection either moves above the permitted threshold or, having previously been higher, falls below it--publication of statutory proposals would be required.
However, the clause and the schedule set out circumstances in which that general approach would not apply. One circumstance is where a school begins to recruit pupils routinely at a different age; for example, if an 11 to 16 school which previously relied on recruiting pupils at the age of 11 began to invite admissions from those leaving middle schools at, say, 12 or 13. In those circumstances the Bill suggests that schools could exceed the previous thresholds with impunity.
If a school sought to expand its intake and increase its selectivity at a point other than the beginning of its normal age range, unlooked for and undesirable consequences could arise. While demographic change and parental preference mean that the overall balance of provision and demand is in the process of constant change, it is in the public interest to maintain some degree of consistency and stability from year to year. Significant departures from established patterns of recruitment between different schools can be difficult
These amendments are designed to guard against these possible difficulties by ensuring that schools proposing to make these significant changes should be subject to a more rigorous process of consultation and approval than would otherwise be the case. The amendments would not preclude such developments taking place but they would help guard against the possibility of serious problems emerging unexpectedly. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 and new Section 265B of the 1996 Act, inserted by Clause 3 of this Bill, deal with cases where publication of a statutory proposal is not required for changes in selective admission to LEA and grant-maintained schools respectively. Those provisions follow on from paragraph 2 and new Section 265A which provide that if there is any change in the proportion of selective admissions which makes a school cross the relevant threshold, statutory proposals must always be published.
Subsection (3) in new Section 265B introduces two exceptions. Neither of these cases would result in significant changes in the character of a school so they would not under present law require publication of statutory proposals. We have already considered the exception in a previous amendment of sixth-form admissions. The second exception applies to the introduction of new relevant age groups for admission. Schools will not need to publish statutory proposals in situations where, although a new relevant age group for admissions is being introduced, the proportion of pupils selected does not increase.
I think the noble Lord cited the example of the LEA-maintained 11-to-16 school which started to admit pupils from middle school at the age of 12 or 13. This would not in itself require statutory proposals because it would not significantly change the school's character by extending its age range; it would still be an 11-to-16 school, but the school might already be selecting more than 20 per cent. of pupils admitted at age 11. Without paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1, the school would then have to publish statutory proposals, even if the proportion of 12 year-olds admitted by selection was no higher than the proportion of admissions at age 11.
These amendments seek to remove that exception. The effect would therefore be to require publication of the statutory proposals in circumstances where the school's character had not fundamentally changed. That would clearly not be right and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Minister seems to be saying that it is not the Government's intention that this proposal of the Government as it stands would allow schools suddenly to increase by a whole form outside the normal age of admission of 11. If the addition of one child who had moved from a different area were to tip the balance, that would be one
Lord Henley: I shall have to look carefully at the example given to me by the noble Baroness. If I may, I shall write to her at a later stage as to whether that would constitute the significant change of character. As I made clear, where a school was merely admitting some pupils at 12 but did not arrive at a higher proportion than it had before, that obviously would not be the significant change of character. To allow these amendments would have left us in that nonsensical position. Whether the noble Baroness has raised another point is something I would prefer to look at, if I may, and I shall write to the noble Baroness in due course.
Lord Monkswell: I wonder whether we are not running into the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, always reminds us of; namely, the law of unintended consequences, in the sense that here we have the Government saying--I use the example of county schools--that there is a threshold of 20 per cent. at which a significant change takes place. The Government have effectively said it is 20 per cent. of selection of pupils. Are we to understand that the courts would not interpret the figure of 20 per cent. as being a significant change which would result in an increased number of pupils in a school? If that applied in year one, would it not also apply in years two and three?
Perhaps the system that the Government seek to put in place to protect, support and encourage grant-maintained schools to become grammar schools could lead to the destruction of those self-same grant-maintained schools because of the competition they would face from county schools that were prepared to go down this competitive route not because they wanted to damage any other school but from a point of view of self-protection. In that sense is not the risk like the risk that exists in industry and commerce where, because there is no minimum wage, decent firms have to pay wages as low as those of bad firms? In that case all standards are driven down rather than being promoted.
Lord Henley: I do not think today is yet the day for debating the minimum wage. We shall have many opportunities to do that with the noble Lord in due course. However, he knows where I stand. He knows perfectly well that if we brought in the minimum wage we would lose half a million jobs pretty quickly, if not more. If the noble Lord is worried that voluntary schools, county schools, or whatever, fear competition from the grant-maintained sector, I have
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: If grant-maintained schools are so successful and so popular, why do the Government have to show them favouritism in government terms by saying that others may select fewer pupils on grounds of ability but grant-maintained schools may select more?
Lord Henley: Because we believe that grant-maintained schools should have the right to pursue the freedoms they have earned by becoming grant-maintained. That is why grant-maintained schools are so successful. That is why the noble Baroness cannot deny it--so many of her friends in the party opposite in another place make use of grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I had hoped that we would not start to have a to and fro across the Chamber about whose children went to which school. I have no intention of parading the fact that my children all went to comprehensive schools. I have no intention of asking those on the Government Benches who propose changes to the state school sector whether they send their children or grandchildren to those schools, be they grant maintained, selective or comprehensive. I hope that in this Chamber, notwithstanding the nearness of the election, we can leave each other's families out of it.
Lord Henley: I am more than happy to do so. I merely pointed out that it is hypocrisy for the party opposite to say it wants to deny choice to others but make use of it itself. That is a point worth making again and again. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, if Church, voluntary or LEA schools wish to obtain the benefits of grant-maintained status they are perfectly free so to do. So far I think we have had ballots in about one out of ten of all schools and of those one out of ten, 75 per cent. have chosen grant-maintained status. I should like some LEAs to cease trying to discourage all their parents from seeking the advantages of grant-maintained status. As I said on the earlier point, I shall look at what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, has said and write to her in due course. I might even copy the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
Page 55, leave out lines 31 to 40.
6.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page