| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may briefly speak against the amendment, which worries me greatly. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will not press it now or at any stage as I would have to vote against it. The noble Lord speaks from direct personal experience and I acknowledge the depth of his feeling, but so does the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who I believe spoke very compellingly. MENCAP also believes that children with special needs should receive the education that is appropriate to those needs in whatever educational setting suits them best.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, says that he is trying to redress the balance which in the Act is tilted in favour of mainstream education, but I know that a high proportion of parents who fought very hard to achieve a mainstream education for their children are the parents of children with learning disabilities. I urge the noble Lord to consider carefully the effect that the amendment would have by way of further tilting the scales against them.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may put briefly to my noble friend what his amendment seems to achieve. I do not know whether it is the intention, but it would remove the presumption of a mainstream school placement for parents of children who have a mental handicap or learning difficulties and also have a statement.
It is important to bear in mind that the amendment would deny such parents a very important choice. I see no reason for doing so. Under Section 316 there is a presumption of going to mainstream schools and many parents believe that that is entirely appropriate for certain children in this form of special educational needs. For others it may not be, and one always hopes that the decision will be made as appropriate in line with the best interests of the parents and children.
In the view of the Government, the right course is to allow parents the opportunity to ask for a place at a mainstream school, if they wish, and for the LEA to consider whether a mainstream placement would be suitable for the child; then obviously to give the parents the right to appeal to the SEN tribunal in the event that the LEA refuses to accede to the parents' wish for a mainstream place.
I do not believe that it would be right to remove the entitlement from the parents of children with certain types of special educational needs. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I obviously do not wish to press the amendment this evening, but I shall certainly return to it at the next stage with more support. Unfortunately, given the lateness of the hour, that is not here.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), that I do not think they listened to what I said. My amendment does not produce--and I merely ask them to read in Hansard and perhaps we can discuss it at the next stage--the effect which they say it would produce.
As I say, I do not want to delay the Committee but my noble friend on the Front Bench says that my amendment would deny parents the very choice which I am seeking to grant them. But the fact is that Section 316 as worded says that the child has to be educated in a school which is not a special school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents. That is the hurdle which these parents have to jump. The tribunal is not solving the issue. Therefore, I do not agree, I am afraid, with anything that has been said by the three previous speakers. I will be returning, as I say, to the matter at Report stage with the support of my noble friends Lady Cox, Lord Renton and others and I suggest that we leave the matter until then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 193:
Before Clause 63, insert the following new clause--
(" . After section 355 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted--
"Reduction in class sizes.
355A.--(1) Each local education authority shall determine, and notify the Secretary of State as to, targets for the maximum number of pupils in classes in maintained schools in its area with respect to such years and year groups as the Secretary of State may specify.
(2) The Secretary of State may make grants to local education authorities for the purposes of securing reductions in numbers in classes.
(3) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to local education authorities, or to governing bodies or headteachers of maintained schools, for the purposes of this section.".").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to require local education authorities to set targets for reductions in class sizes.
The arguments for the amendment are simple. All other things being equal, teachers teach better and children learn more easily if teachers have to work with fewer children at a time. Of course, all other things are not equal. An excellent teacher will do well with a class of 40 even if that teacher is acutely aware that those children could have done so much better with a class of 20. A poor teacher will fail to communicate and engage with a class of 15, although it is likely that confrontation with 35 or 40 pupils may lead to total failure.
What is raised repeatedly by the Government is the argument that because they claim that there is no measurable improvement until class sizes are below 20, there is little point in setting targets for maximum class sizes for children in England and Wales.
In Scotland, there is a nationally agreed maximum class size. I understand that as a result of negotiations between the teachers and their employers, it is the practice in Scotland to agree to maximum class sizes.
The Government can say for as long as they wish that children are as well educated in a group of 35 as to 25 or 40 as to 30. We have just been discussing the issue of special educational needs. Statemented pupils take additional staffing with them; non-statemented pupils do not. Many larger classes are in areas and localities where there is a problem with large numbers of children with moderate special educational needs and learning difficulties.
Money should not be being used to buy for the most able children, chosen by selection, at the expense of resources for children in classes which are growing larger and larger.
We hear much in your Lordships' Chamber about the need to inculcate in our young children a sense of moral values, worth, understanding and genuine social development. Any good teacher will tell you that that involves the teacher, particularly with young children, having an opportunity to talk to and listen to individual children. Money is a scarce resource and that resource ought to be available for all the nation's young children. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Henley: I have to say, again, that I believe that such an amendment is over-prescriptive and
would not actually be helpful to schools. Under local management of schools, decisions about class sizes in individual schools are taken, quite rightly, by head teachers--dedicated professionals who know their own pupils' needs. Decisions which many have taken show that they do not believe that class size is the key issue. Indeed, some have chosen to group more than 30 children in--
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but can he give Members of the Committee an example of a head teacher in any infant or primary school in England or Wales who has had to increase class sizes and who has stated publicly that he or she regards this as somehow not important?
Lord Henley: Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to develop my argument. I was about to make a very crucial point. Obviously I cannot give an example from 24,000 schools of the sort that the noble Baroness demands. However, some head teachers have chosen to group children in larger groups so that they can focus greater support in smaller groups on those who might have extra needs.
It is important to remember the very dramatic growth in the number of support staff over the past few years; for example, the number of support staff in primary schools has grown by some 50 per cent. in the past four years. That seems to suggest that many heads feel that it is more effective to take on support staff to give teachers flexible assistance when and where it is needed, rather than try to keep class sizes at some arbitrary maximum. I believe that those decisions are ones which, quite rightly, ought to be taken by the teachers and not by either LEAs or Ministers. An amendment of this sort would take such decisions out of the hands of the head teachers. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on the matter. Through my interest, which I declare, as a member of a local education authority--though not an abiding interest because I do not intend to stand for re-election on lst May--I am aware that the Government have repeatedly put pressure on LEAs to reduce the actual level of their spending on education. My understanding is that the average over-spend, the money spent in excess of that which the Government consider to be necessary, provided by LEAs to schools is in the order of £80 per pupil and that, in some cases, the difference between the Government's proposal for the local authority's expenditure in the schools and its actual expenditure is as high as £200 per pupil.
I also understand that many head teachers and governing bodies, faced with scarce resources, have had to make judgments about who they can and cannot afford to employ. But, from a wide range of colleagues covering LEAs in Wales, in the counties of England, in the unitary authorities and, indeed, in the metropolitan districts, I have absolutely no
experience of any head teacher who would view replacing a teacher appointment with a non-teaching member of staff as anything other than an essential expedient when faced with such pressures.
Let us consider, for example, the past three years. If we take away the increase in pupil numbers in this sector of the primary education field and take away the additional legislative costs imposed on the education service--for example, for seat belts--together with the government-determined levels of teachers' pay, the Government have reduced the money available. I think the Minister may well live to regret having implied in his reply to the amendment that head teachers in England and Wales are happily increasing class sizes and regard non-teaching support staff as an adequate replacement for the qualified teaching staff that in their professional opinion they believe would be of benefit to children.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page