| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may first deal with the amendment and then address the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on the difference between ability and aptitude.
We believe that grammar schools are an essential part of a diverse education system. That is why we wish to promote them. Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 would extend the circumstances in which county schools could publish their own proposals to all cases where county schools had asked the LEA to publish proposals to admit all pupils by reference to ability. That would include cases where a school wished to select all pupils on the grounds of ability on a particular subject or subjects and where a school wished to select all pupils with reference to any level of ability.
Given that the noble Lord's previous amendment sought to remove paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 completely, it seems odd that these amendments seem to be trying to increase the scope for county schools to publish proposals to extend selection. I can only assume that the noble Lord might wish to make it easier for schools to select by any level of ability and not just high ability.
I assure the noble Lord that paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 and Clause 3 provide for that. There is nothing to prevent the admission authority for the school
selecting pupils of average or below average ability up to its threshold, and it could do that without statutory proposals. It could select a certain percentage of pupils of high ability, a certain percentage of medium ability and a certain percentage of low ability if it wished to do so.The noble Lord may also wish to make it easier for schools to select all pupils by reference to different levels of ability, with the aim of achieving a banded intake. I should point out that it is open to schools to use the relevant thresholds set by the Bill to secure a particular ability band in their intake. It is open also to county schools to negotiate banded admissions with their LEA, very often because, for county schools, the LEA is the admission authority. But I believe that it is right for the special arrangement allowing county schools to publish their own proposals to be confined to schools wishing to become grammar schools.
Unlike schools with banded admissions, grammar schools provide a unique service for pupils and parents. As I said, at present, access to that service is very patchy and restricted, hence our priority to increase the number of grammar schools, and the provisions in the Bill facilitate that, should the parents and the community which they happen to be in wish that to take place. The same arguments do not apply to comprehensive schools with banded admissions. I have no objection in principle to such admission arrangements but I see no case for extending that exception to the normal statutory proposals arrangements for such cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked about the difference between aptitude and ability, given they are not defined in the Bill. The noble Lord is a much greater linguist than I am, and sadly we do not have the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, who is an even greater expert on these matters, to advise us. I do not remember the 1944 Act because it was passed some nine years before I was born. But the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who is marginally older than I am, will remember it. It uses the terms ability and aptitude without defining them. For example, Section 8 of the 1944 Act refers to different ages, abilities and aptitude of children.
No subsequent education legislation has defined those terms. I do not believe that they need to be defined because they have clear, well-understood meanings in the common use of language. In broad terms, "ability" is used to relate to skills and capacities which are already apparent, whereas "aptitude" relates more to future potential. It may also encompass qualities such as interest, commitment and suitability for a particular type of education. That takes us back to the specialist colleges and whether someone was suited to go to a language college, whether or not he had the ability. I referred to my example as being one who probably did not have a particular aptitude for foreign languages but others might, without necessarily having the ability in those subjects.
As to which particular tests might be used, grammar schools have long used tests of general ability. There is nothing novel there. There is no reason why the Government should become involved in prescribing the
precise tests to be used. A great deal of work is going on at the moment to develop a way to assess ability and aptitude for a particular subject. Again, that is well-established in some fields. For example, I ask the noble Lord to look at music and dance.Some schools use different methods for assessing aptitude for technology. We have hardly discussed the city technology colleges except in the rather useful intervention by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke, who has a close connection with a city technology college in Derby. That development work continues. We shall leave it to the professional judgment of schools as to which methods they use. Again, that is a matter for schools and the admission authority. I remind Members of the Committee opposite that the admission authority is very often the LEA. That should be decided in its local context.
Perhaps I may move on to Amendment No. 33. It would remove the word "high" before "ability" in Clause 2. That clause relates to the requirement on all schools which are not already fully selective grammar schools to consider, once a year, whether to introduce or increase selection. The effect of the amendment would be that a small number of schools which use selective tests to place pupils into ability bands would also be exempt from the annual review. There is no reason why schools which band pupils in order to preserve their comprehensive nature should be exempt from considering whether or not to take in a higher proportion of able pupils, and whether or not that would be welcomed by the local parents. There is scope for such schools to introduce or increase the selection of pupils by high ability and, therefore, they should fall within the requirements of Clause 2. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. At first, I thought that he was being a little mischievous. I am quite sure that the noble Lord knows that the purpose of my amendment was not to increase selection; indeed, I believe that my view on selection has been made clear more than once in this Chamber. It was in fact a probing amendment to try to ascertain from the Minister some clearer understanding as to the definition of the terms "ability", "high ability" and "aptitude". I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation which I shall read with care and interest in Hansard tomorrow in an effort to consider the matter further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 27:
The noble Lord said: This is a particularly detailed amendment but one which is important as regards complying with the wishes that the Minister expressed earlier; namely, that there should be a level playing field and that, as he said in relation to the Secretary of State, she or even he should not prejudge the situation.
As I read the phrase in paragraph (2), that is exactly what local education authorities are being asked to do. The words used are,
and I emphasise the following words,
In order not to prejudge the issue and to provide a level playing field, I propose that we delete the words "towards complying with" the request and insert those much more neutral and simple words, "in considering" the request. That seems to me to be more exactly what the Minister wished to do when he spoke earlier. I am, therefore, confident of moving my first successful amendment in this Chamber. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I hope on this occasion that the Minister's stony heart will relent just a little. It is not a big thing for us to be asking. The amendment would at least remove the overt and blatant bias in the procedure. An LEA is not the obedient slave of any of its schools. That is one of the reasons that my party has taken great care to emphasise the word "partnership" between LEAs and schools in all educational matters.
Another advantage would be that the LEA for its part would have to acknowledge its duty to consider. It would be very difficult for it to get out of that duty. It would have to think deliberately and carefully, to inspect, to scrutinise and give attention to those proposals. It would also have to judge them considerately and fairly. Funnily enough, the Minister complained that I was not giving him enough information about languages and literature this evening.
However, I spent some time with the word "consider". The Oxford English Dictionary--and I do not mean the short one, I mean the full one--says that, according to Festus, a grammarian, it comes from sidus, sideris--a star--and speculates that perhaps to consider is in some way to stargaze. There is a very mysterious origin to the word. It may have been a term in augury or in astrology but, if so, it is odd that it is unknown to the Latin writers. At all events, it is a useful and neutral word implying an open mind, making a judgment on the available evidence. Its contemporary value is perhaps best seen in the judge's instructions to the jury at the end of a case to retire, "and consider your verdict".
Baroness Young: We are having an absolutely delightful discussion. I am very sorry that I did not bring with me my full copy of the Oxford English Dictionary. Naturally, coming from Oxford, I have a very large one. Of course, I would have looked up both "consider" and "comply" so that I could fully follow the noble Lord in his argument which I found to be extremely interesting.
However, I shall now return to the slightly more serious point about the amendment. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be able to explain this, but is not the point the fact that this section of the schedule refers to the governing body of county schools publishing proposals for admissions apt to be selective?
Page 56, line 32, leave out ("towards complying with") and insert ("in considering").
"the governing body reasonably form the opinion that the authority have not made satisfactory progress towards"--
"complying with the request".
8.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page