| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: All of us are breaking conventions, and so will I. The noble Lord asks me a perfectly fair question. I will give him an answer. We have nothing against the service boarding school scheme. I simply point out what it costs.
Lord Henley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I imagine that his comments will be greeted with cheers throughout the land. However, I believe that it would have been more helpful had he spelt it out at the beginning because his earlier remarks might have caused some alarm.
I shall not spend time in outlining why this particular amendment is technically flawed, save to say that legally binding participation agreements govern the availability of assisted places at schools that currently participate in the scheme. Schedule 35 of the 1966 Act defines procedures for their termination. I say to the noble Baroness that, whatever she believes, the amendment is defective and does not achieve exactly what she wishes to achieve.
Having said that, under this Government the assisted places scheme will continue and expand. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has given a commitment so to do. We have no intention of providing for its phased reduction. On the contrary, we want to widen access for parents in every part of the country. That is why we are committed to doubling the number of places available and providing for preparatory schools to participate. Since its inception the scheme has supported over 80,000 children. Future generations should not be denied the same opportunities, as my noble friend Lord Haslam put it so well.
We believe in extending opportunities for pupils. The assisted places scheme plays a vital part in this process. It is achieving its objectives of giving access to some of the best independent schools to children who would not otherwise have been able to contemplate them. We intend to give twice as many children that opportunity and extend the scheme accordingly.
Despite the overwhelming success of the scheme, noble Lords opposite seek its abolition. We have heard much about their plans to use the funds released to reduce class sizes in the maintained sector. But it is not clear whether their figuring takes account of the costs of educating children who would otherwise have benefited from the scheme in the maintained sector. A range of figures has been quoted. What is clear is that savings from the abolition of the assisted places scheme would not cover the cost of a maximum infants class size of 30, as has been proposed on a number of occasions. A recent report by the Institute of Public Finance demonstrates that savings from abolition would be at least £250 million short of what is required by the party opposite.
We do not accept that any arbitrary limit on class sizes would have a significant effect. As Her Majesty's chief inspector has made quite clear, the educational benefits of small reductions in class sizes are not proven. Such a limit would restrict the head teacher's discretion to make the best use of his resources. In stark contrast, spending on the assisted places scheme provides very real benefits for thousands of children. Recent research by the London School of Economics, which is so well represented on the Benches opposite, confirms that assisted places pupils achieve better A-level results than their counterparts of similar ability in maintained schools. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In considering the response of the Minister, my understanding of this amendment is that it deals with the non-extension of the assisted places scheme. The Government and the Minister may repeat for evermore that if a child is in a large class to reduce the class size by a small amount makes no difference and that only if one is able to reduce class size to that being considered in assisted places schools can there be a difference. It may convince those whose children are already in small classes, but those of us whose children are educated in large classes know that, if a teacher has to deal with one, two or three extra children, particularly if those one, two or
three extra children have non-statemented special needs, the amount of time the teacher can spend with them is reduced.Nothing we on these Benches have said can have caused the Minister to end up wondering where in the Committee are the Benches upon which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon sits. The Benches have not moved. The Government have moved. The Government have moved away from the Conservative philosophy of my childhood, which sought to extend opportunities to more and more people. This surplus places proposal, extending the expenditure of public money to a small number of children who the Government have admitted are selected on grounds of ability, and who are not within the large bulk of average and below average attainment children who need help and additional high quality teaching, is a foolish and folly-driven plan.
With the Committee's agreement I shall withdraw the amendment, but I find it tragic that those who speak on the Government Benches seem to feel that, with the exception of a few who are lifted out of large classes, to take money from the rest and worsen their education opportunity is acceptable. On these Benches we can never accept that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The noble Baroness and I come here from the same area of the country. I had something to do with the introduction of the assisted places scheme. Does she agree with me that the education provided at Bolton Grammar School, Blackburn's grammar school, Manchester Grammar school, and Bradford Grammar School, is of a standard which should be open to those other than those whose parents can afford to pay the bills? Surely the whole purpose of the assisted places scheme was to give to the bright child from the inner city the opportunity to benefit from those advantages. As someone who was involved in the inception of the scheme, I am bound to say that I have never understood the Labour Party's objection to it. I bitterly regret that New Labour appears to be equally opposed to it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We remain opposed to it. The answer to the noble Lord's question is simple. It would be inaccurate and churlish to deny that the schools he mentioned are good schools. It would be equally unacceptable for me to deny the existence of excellent comprehensive schools, grant-maintained schools, and comprehensive voluntary aided schools in the North West.
All the evidence, including the evidence provided by the Government, shows that children with higher than average ability do well in the comprehensive system and achieve well. They make up a large percentage of the children who go on to university as a result of the increase in the number of pupils going to university and into higher education. None of us on these Benches nor any Member on the Liberal Democrat Benches seeks to deny that the majority of schools to which pupils are sent with public money under the assisted places scheme are good schools. That is not the point at issue. The
question is whether more money needs to be spent on sending them to such schools rather than sending them to equally good schools in their own locality as part of the comprehensive system. Our attitude is not churlish. This is an unnecessary diversion of public resources and it is not necessary for the ablest young people in our country that those resources are diverted.
Lord Haslam: I wish to underline something that I have already said. Bolton School is very high in the league tables; higher than Manchester Grammar School, which is a very renowned school. Out of 2,000 pupils it has 550 with assisted places. If in future those 550 places were to be abolished, we could fill them by means of willing fee-paying parents. Therefore, the Government will not have an extra bundle of money but indeed will have to educate 550 pupils elsewhere. Hence, there will be no pot of money available to reduce class sizes.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The subject of the amendment is whether the assisted places scheme should be expanded. The subject of the amendment is not that there are no places for pupils and therefore the Government are buying places through the assisted places scheme. The noble Lord who has just spoken--forgive me, but I do not know his name--referred to the fact that pupils are going to Bolton School and that money is being spent there. During the period of the assisted places scheme, the Bolton education authority has to my knowledge carried surplus places in schools which could have been filled by those pupils.
The noble Lord, Lord Haslam, knows well that if two more pupils are taken into a class of 12 learning French one does not have to provide an extra French teacher.
I do not seek to denigrate Bolton School. I am aware that it has excellent results. However, on behalf of those schools which take pupils with moderate and severe learning difficulties, whose pupils are counted for league table comparisons with Bolton School, I am bitterly resentful of the comparisons that are made. The issue of comparing like with like is one of the most important in establishing how we measure educational attainment. To the best of my knowledge, under the assisted places scheme or outside it, Bolton School does not take children with moderate or severe learning difficulties. It cannot then ask to be compared with schools which do.
We all know that an important issue is being debated here. I have no vested interest. On 1st May I shall seek to be a county councillor in the Lancashire County Council, but Bolton is no longer in Lancashire. I have no interest, but I demand that when we discuss the results of Bolton School we do so on the basis of fair comparison with the schools which take children with moderate and severe learning difficulties and with those which serve the entire community regardless of the child's ability, be they voluntary-aided or comprehensive in the maintained sector. I believe that those comparisons are important.
When resources are scarce, I believe that we should garner them wisely and spend them on those children whose results show the greatest need for additional
support and help. It is my belief--and all the research shows this--that those who would be selected by Bolton School would do well in all schools. The level of their results would be as high. The average is dragged down when schools serve those with special educational needs. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Responsibility for discipline: LEA-maintained schools]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page