| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Education Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 24:
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to leave out paragraph 5 of Schedule 1. It represents an open encouragement to county schools to bolt for the door marked "grammar school" whenever proposals are published which they do not like. Some of us are familiar with that situation in relation to grant-maintained schools. Where the LEA publishes proposals for change in the character of the school the governing body is then empowered to publish an alternative plan to move to 100 per cent. selection. If the LEA plan has not been determined, and the timing usually lies in the hands of the Secretary of State, that action leads to the Secretary of State considering the two together. Where the LEA plan would otherwise have fallen to be determined by itself, the Secretary of State will acquire control of it. In other words, paragraph 5 creates a clear possibility of collusion between the governors of a dissatisfied school and the Secretary of State against the LEA.
It is of course the case that the governors may have sound reasons for disapproving of an LEA plan. That may well be the case, but what is unseemly in relation to the conduct of the education system is that the Secretary of State should be drawn so openly into a partisan position, or towards the risk of being seen to be in such a position. As with paragraph 4 dealing with specialist schools, the governing body is given the power to trigger the process by publishing its own proposals where it feels that the LEA,
within a period of two months to its request to move to 100 per cent. selection. That same loaded question is put to the LEA with a consequence that a determined governing body can draw the Secretary of State into a possibly controversial situation on the flimsiest of judgments as to the way in which the LEA is dealing with the matter.
This is one of the crudest provisions in the Bill. It invites conflict between schools and the LEAs and makes clear that the Secretary of State has prejudged the outcome. Once again, what may be interpreted as the narrow self-interest of individual schools is being placed above that of the community, or, indeed, future generations. There is no reason why what schools may
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I should point out to the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 inclusive.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I support the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in particular on a couple of smaller points. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the Committee some comfort on the position of the LEA plan which has not been determined, the determination being in the hands of the Secretary of State so that the Secretary of State considers the two together. Where the LEA plan would otherwise have fallen to be determined in itself and on its own merits, the Secretary of State has now acquired control of it and has to consider it together with the other plan.
I wish to know what "together" implies. Does it mean that the Secretary of State must compare one set of proposals with the other? Can she decide something entirely different? Is she either permitted or obliged to consult with the LEA and the governors? Can she call in an independent arbitrator within the powers of the clause? Is she obliged to publish her findings? Is there any appeal mechanism by either side against the decision?
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may make clear to the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Morris, that the Secretary of State has not prejudged any of her decisions on such matters which come before her, nor would she do so. If she had so prejudged those decisions, if she had not exercised her decision in the proper manner, the matter could be open for appeal.
We believe that grammar schools, to which the amendment relates, are an essential part of a diverse education system. At present just under 5 per cent. of maintained secondary pupils are in such schools. Furthermore, their geographical distribution is very patchy. In some areas, about 20 per cent. of pupils benefit from such selection. In other areas there are none. We want to encourage schools of all types--county, voluntary, grant-maintained or whatever--to become grammar schools should they so wish.
However, because 100 per cent. selection would represent a significant change in the character of most schools--we recognise that, which is why the Bill is drafted as it is--statutory proposals would be required for making such a change. The governing bodies of voluntary and grant-maintained schools may publish their own statutory proposals. The proposals for significantly changing the character of county schools may, under existing legislation, be published only by the local education authority. That means that county schools, which are the majority of state secondary schools, are at a disadvantage in seeking to become grammar schools, in particular where they are faced with an LEA which is hostile to the whole concept of selection.
That is why paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 enables the governing body of a county school to publish its own set of proposals in certain circumstances. Such circumstances are where governors want to turn the school into a grammar school, have asked the LEA to publish the necessary proposals and after at least two months have reasonably formed the opinion that the LEA has not made satisfactory progress towards complying with that request. Therefore, the purpose of paragraph 5 is to establish a level playing field between voluntary schools, grant-maintained schools and county schools in relation to grammar school proposals. Amendment No. 24 seeks to destroy that by removing the paragraph. The effect of the amendment would be to discriminate against county schools by enabling LEAs to block any plans they might have to become grammar schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, asked about consultation. Obviously, the Secretary of State would consider any representations made by the local education authority. It is clear that any local education authority would make such submissions should it so wish. Therefore, there is no need for the Secretary of State herself--and long may it be herself--to consult. I would rather not say "consult with" because I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, would not be happy with that use of English. Having said that, I have come across both Dickens and Trollope using "consult with" and "meet with". No doubt they can be criticised by others than myself.
Obviously, if the LEAs wish to make submissions it is for them to do so and the Secretary of State would have to consider them. However, I do not believe that it is necessary that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State should consult them herself.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for his brief lesson in English literature. I shall go back and consult my copies of Trollope further on this important issue.
As regards the amendment, I am not entirely satisfied that the Minister has addressed the issue that I raised and I wish to look at it further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 25:
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26 and 33. The purpose of these amendments is to test apparent changes in the definitions of ability and aptitude which have been in place since the 1944 Act. The expression ability and aptitude was used in the Education Act 1994 in relation to the duty of local education authorities and parents to cause a child to receive efficient, full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude. This Education Bill proposes that children may be admitted to primary or secondary schools by reference to ability or aptitude.
Clause 2(2) refers also to pupils with aptitude as though that status applies to only a few. For the first time, the Bill introduces into legislation the words high ability in relation to the admission of pupils to a school which is wholly selective. Those distinctions are all new. Ability and aptitude were formerly seen as applying to all pupils, hence the meaning of those terms is being changed subtly from that understood since the passage of the 1944 Education Act.
The meaning of the expression ability and aptitude has been changed in the Bill from that which was in the 1944 Act. The Government would like us to believe that the tests which are used to determine whether children should be admitted to schools are reliable. However, experience suggests that they are intended to identify future general performance or performance in a specific area of the curriculum and they are wholly inadequate in the case of large numbers of children. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I have only a few questions which I wish to ask the Minister but I find that they go to the very heart of this whole area. Will the Minister explain the difference in this Bill between ability and aptitude?
Secondly, how can a natural aptitude for, let us say, French be recognised as distinct from an interest in or a knowledge of French? It is perfectly possible that a child is brought up in a bilingual or semi-bilingual home and acquires quite a knowledge of French. That would not necessarily be an aptitude for it. What is the distinction between natural aptitude and knowledge?
Thirdly, how is high ability to be distinguished from ability, in the 1994 Act's sense of the word? Can the Minister describe to us the diagnostic qualities of the present test for high ability?
Page 56, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 57.
"have not made satisfactory progress towards complying",
8.30 p.m.
Page 56, line 28, leave out ("general").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page