| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Tope: I warmly support this amendment which I think will put in place an infinitely better procedure for considering these matters than that proposed in the Bill. It is undeniably the case that on most occasions when a school proposes significant changes to its arrangements that affects not only that school and the pupils at that school but also neighbouring schools, the feeder schools and the pupils at those feeder schools who have some aspirations to go to the school in question.
This amendment would enable a process to be established whereby such proposals and the effect of such proposals can be properly, clearly and independently considered by the local community. It provides an opportunity for parents, for the school concerned, for other schools which may be adversely or even beneficially affected by the proposals and particularly for parents of pupils at the feeder schools all to have an opportunity to express their views and to enable those views to be properly considered and taken into account before decisions are taken.
If the Government really believe that their proposals are so enthusiastically supported by the vast majority of parents, they have nothing whatsoever to fear from a procedure such as this which gives the parents concerned the opportunity to demonstrate the truth of the Government's words. I beg to differ. I do not think that the Government assess the public mood correctly. But, equally, I am quite willing to have my views put to the test through the process proposed in this amendment.
For all those reasons I think that if this amendment were accepted it would go a considerable way towards allaying some of the concerns shared by Members of the Committee, certainly on this side of the Chamber, and most importantly of all concern expressed by parents and by all those concerned with and interested in education in this country. This is a useful amendment. It is an important proposal and it is one which will go a considerable way towards addressing the shortcomings of the Bill. I hope the Committee will feel able to accept it if it has the opportunity to do so.
Baroness Warnock: I too wish to support this amendment largely on the ground that the assumption
that parents want schools to be more selective has not been proved. I also think it is odd that a Bill which is purportedly aimed at giving parents more choice should at this stage cut out the parental voice altogether and allow the decision to be made by the governing body alone. Although the governing body may know best, as the Minister said in another context, it is likely that it may know best in a rather limited sense; namely, that it knows what it thinks is in the interest of its particular school. On this kind of occasion parents may well not agree, and particularly the parents of children in the feeder schools who may have set their hearts on their children going to the school in question, because it is only the successful, over-subscribed schools that will aim to go selective. It is only they who can decide to select their pupils. Therefore ex hypothesi the school in question will be a successful school which parents wish their children to attend.I therefore think it would be extremely good, as a kind of exercise in democracy, if the parents could be given a chance to raise an objection. If the objection comes only from parents who have children who are not in the category of those who are likely to be selected, they have every right to have their voice heard too. I refer especially--I say this boringly and repetitively--to those parents who have children with special educational needs, not necessarily with statements. Those parents should be allowed to see how this proposal strikes them, their children and their children's teachers. I warmly support this amendment.
Lord Skidelsky: It seems to me extraordinary the extent to which the Opposition parties want to go in order to impede rather minor increases in selectivity, because they are minor. The effects of these amendments--particularly Amendment No. 39, but also Amendment No. 41--would be to prevent any movement on this matter at all. Why is it that they are so frightened of a small increase in selection? The argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, is that only successful schools will be in a position to increase selection and, ex hypothesi, that would mean that other schools would be deprived of pupils; thus it would have a bad impact on other schools.
I do not accept that at all. Schools may be more successful at one point in time than another. The noble Baroness seems to ignore the fact that successful schools encourage other schools to become successful too. Instead of the cut-throat competition referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, there will be another kind of co-operation, through emulation. That will be one of the results of giving schools freedom to select a little more.
The whole attitude of the Opposition parties is based on what might be called a "local authority mindset". Earlier I raised the question of the "community of schools". It is simply defined by the legal status of schools in a certain area: local authority schools, county schools and voluntary schools. The idea that a community of schools might include a larger area, that it might include many schools that are not subject to the local authority, that it might include a large part of the country, seems to be entirely lacking. This is a deeply
restrictive set of proposals designed solely for the purpose of stopping any change whatever in the existing system.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I might add to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky. I thought that one of the principles that had underlain many of the reforms in education was that of giving schools effective governing bodies which are responsible for the general running of the school. The governing bodies--which always include parent governors, so governors would automatically consider the views of parent governors when coming to a decision on this matter--would be acting quite properly.
Clause 2 places a duty on the governing bodies of LEA-maintained secondary schools to consider each year introducing or extending a selective admission. If the amendment were accepted, one can see only too clearly what would happen at local level. We do not know quite what is meant by,
- "objections exceeding in number a minimum",
but there would be a great incentive for those who in principle object to selection to make quite sure that they got a minimum, however that might be defined. There would then be the establishment of a local public inquiry. Going through the inquiry and hearing the evidence and representations would take months. The result would be completely to negate the whole point of the clause, which is to require governing bodies to consider the selective procedure. After all, the clause does not say that schools have to admit selected pupils. It simply says that they must consider doing so. Having given responsibility to governing bodies, one should allow them to get on with doing what their job properly is.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I do not wish to waste time but I must distance myself from those who are in principle against selection. I am not, but I strongly believe in the community of schools. Anyone who worked in the old direct grant schools, for example, understood the concept. There was enormous co-operation and understanding between the maintained schools, direct grant schools, primary schools that were maintained and primary schools that were independent. I believe it is true that schools take an interest in all kinds of ways, to put it at its lowest, in what other schools have to offer and they wish to co-operate with each other. I include among the community of schools the selective schools.
All I was saying is that not all schools would be wise to think about selection: if they are already short of pupils, they are in no position to select. The governing body of such a school is bound to recognise that fact. If the governors think the school can start selecting pupils, they will be in grave difficulties.
I believe that parents ought to have a say. I am not terribly sold on the details of the amendment and entirely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it would be easy to whip up an enthusiastic crowd of people who are anti-selection, so as to be sure of getting the minimum every time.
Nevertheless, some arrangement for hearing the voice of parents and not that of the governing bodies alone ought to be introduced at some stage in reaching the decision whether or not to go selective.
Lord Henley: Following that intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, I am more confused than I was at the beginning of the discussion on the amendment. I suppose that that is not unusual. Earlier, the noble Baroness said that parents do not want more selection. I refer her to the survey by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers which was published in January last year. The survey made clear that, overall, of the order of 54 per cent. agreed with the following question: whether they agreed or disagreed that the Government should return to a fully selective education system with grammar schools, secondary modern schools and 11-plus examinations. There were 37 per cent. who disagreed.
The noble Baroness told us that parents do not want more selection. As a result, I received the impression that she herself was opposed to selection. It is one of the advantages of the Committee stage that one can have repeated interventions and we have now heard that she is not against selection per se. I believe that selection is an important factor to bring into our education system and it is something that we should all seek. A little more selection is no bad thing. I mentioned that some 5 per cent. of the pupils at secondary stage benefited from the grammar or fully selective schools and we would like to see more. We are not saying that all schools should go selective--far from it, we are saying that all schools should consider such matters as appropriate.
I know that Members of the Committee opposite do not want selection. They feel that they know best. They normally say that they do not want selection but we have heard from Mr. Blunkett that if we read his lips there will be no selection of any kind whatever. However, that was moderated and revised recently as a result of the by-election taking place on Thursday in the Wirral. We believe that selection plays an important role and that it should be recognised that children have different talents, interests and needs. It is difficult for a single type of school, particularly at secondary level, to serve the full range effectively and stretch the most able, help the least able and develop particular talents.
We also believe that parents want the appropriate good education that suits the individual talents, interests and needs of the particular child. That is why the Government's aim is to promote a much better match between what parents want on the one hand and what the schools provide on the other. As we know, because we discussed it at earlier stages, that means greater diversity for schools specialising in teaching particular subjects. We have still not heard from the noble Lord, Lord Morris--perhaps he will address it when he sums up--what his party's views are on selection in specialist schools or on the type of pupils in schools. I shall press him on the matter.
Selection also means that schools should look at what the parents themselves want and not at what the teachers or the local education authorities think they should want. As I said, we know that there are many parents who want to send their children to selective schools. I cited as an example the evidence from the survey by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. I also mentioned the very high ratio of applicants to places, typically around four to one, although I understand that in one or two schools the ratio can be up to five to one.
We believe that selective schools can stretch able pupils and enable them to realise their full potential. We believe that the ambition to send children to selective schools is widespread among all groups and is by no means confined to individual social or ethnic groups within the country. We also believe that research carried out and, I believe, published in July last year, by the London School of Economics--an organ well represented on the Benches opposite--shows that pupils with assisted places at selective independent schools achieve better A-level results than pupils of similar ability at maintained schools. It is reasonable to assume that most of the maintained school sample attended non-selective schools.
Citing again the evidence from Northern Ireland, we do not believe that some schools being selective and some being non-selective has a bad effect on those who are going to non-selective schools. I suspect that that is possibly one of the reasons why in Northern Ireland we see that the results achieved in GCSE are significantly ahead of those achieved in this country. Similarly, it is why we see in those areas where there is a high proportion of selection in this country a higher level of success and a lower level of failure in GCSE than in other areas.
These amendments are rather peculiar. They run completely counter to the deregulatory intention of the Bill itself. They would impose radical new duties on the local education authorities, duties which I am sure those who represent the local education authorities would feel that those authorities ought to be spared. They also impose new and radical duties on the governing bodies of those voluntary aided and grant maintained schools which wish to respond to local demand in a positive way. Dare I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that to some extent they undermine the role of the LEAs themselves?
LEAs and governing bodies will already be required by the Bill to consult those whom they consider appropriate. On an earlier amendment I spoke at some length about how we considered that consultation ought to take place. As I said, guidance will be issued on that matter by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who will consult as appropriate, as my department always does, at great length and with great thoroughness on the detail of that guidance. That is substantially the same procedure as applies at present to proposals requiring the statutory process.
The purpose of the relaxations in the Bill is to allow schools and authorities to respond to the wishes
of parents. The consultation process may reveal the fact that the proposed changes are not popular with the parents and others. That is the point behind the consultation process and why, as the noble Lord, will know, we have changed so many things. I cite, for example, the announcement that we made only last week on teachers' pensions. There will need to be very careful consideration as to the best way forward in the light of those circumstances. It is undeniable that a school which implements unpopular policies will discover very rapidly that parents vote with their feet. That is the appropriate sanction on those particular schools and I am sure those schools will take that into account.We believe that schools are part of the community they serve. We trust the governing bodies--those in the schools, those running the schools and those most closely involved with the schools--to know what is in the best interests of their pupils and their schools, how the schools should serve the community and how to act responsibly. We do not believe that we need a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The idea was put forward of public inquiries. I was briefly a pupil at the planning Bar and saw a number of public inquiries. Members of the Committee know how long they can take, how expensive they can be and how much effort they need. It is not appropriate that public inquiries should be used for these matters. There are occasions when public inquiries can play an important part in the decision-making process, but I do not believe that they are appropriate for changes such as these. I suggest therefore that the noble Lord withdraws the amendment. If he does not, I advise the Committee to reject it.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page