| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, what concerns me in so much of what appears in the early parts of the Bill is not only, or not principally, what the Government are encouraging schools to do, but the fact that they are empowering them to do it without regard to the interests of anyone else.
If I decide that my own development can best be furthered by bursting into song or performing acrobatics while the Minister is replying to the debate, noble Lords can propose that I be no longer heard. In the last resort I can be removed from the scene. But if a school decides to go its own way and drive a coach and horses through local co-operative sixth-form arrangements, such as operate successfully in the Oxford area where I live, it will be able to do so without further restraint.
This is not self-government for schools; it is selfish government for schools. There will no longer be statutory procedures where objections, if any, can be heard. A school will be able to create a sixth form without that being regarded as a significant change in character, which seems to me an offence against language. The Further Education Funding Council was concerned enough about the destabilising effect on the viability of existing sixth-form provision, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, to write about it to the Secretary of State last autumn.
It is noteworthy that the welcome increase in staying-on rates, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, drew attention in Committee, has taken place without the deregulation provisions of this Bill, quite uninhibited by the existing system of checks and balances. These amendments are designed to retain the consultation and approval procedures without which a
free-for-all would work against the interests of post-school age pupils as a whole. I support them strongly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we too support the amendments. It is difficult to debate with a Government whose use of language and adherence to policies is becoming so strange. Earlier today in your Lordships' House we learnt that, if the Opposition Benches put on a three-line Whip and win a vote, that is called "an ambush". That is a strange use of language.
Since 1979, the Government have exhorted local education authorities to make the best use of available resources with regard to financial and educational effectiveness in what they are able to offer as a range of options to pupils post-16. It was this Government which exhorted the local education authorities to review post-16 provision in their area. The terms of that review were to look very hard at sixth-form colleges of less than 200 pupils because it was not possible to offer the proper range of courses without undue public expenditure.
At that time in the 1980s, the Conservative Government said that their real concern was that schools were using resources intended for pupils who were not reaching the desired levels of attainment in the 11 to 16 range. The resources for those pupils were being diverted into the competition to attract greater financial benefit by encouraging more young people to stay on. It was a difficult exercise. There has to be consultation and discussion at local level. The Secretary of State of the day had to agree to the proposals concerned. However, the real concern was to ensure the quality of each subject offered and the range of subjects.
We in this country suffer from too few young people taking sciences and modern languages. Even with large, viable sixth forms, we are finding it difficult to recruit sufficient numbers into the sciences and languages, particularly the languages which are essential if we are to be effective members of the European Union. Young people will also need languages in order to work effectively in industry, the law, education and a wide range of professions. The amendments are modest, asking that due consultation and consideration is given to the interests of those young people.
I fail to understand how the Government can have performed a complete U-turn in their approach to what ought to be on offer. The Minister smiles at my presentation of what happened. It is an accurate description of what happened in the early 1980s and it was important that that took place. However, the voluntary sixth-form colleges, for instance, raised money in order to be able to develop a good provision. There has been no proper consultation so that parents and governors of the schools concerned can have an opportunity to understand all the facts. Instead there is to be an immediate decision to expand provision, thereby damaging the chances of a generation of young people. The Government cannot believe that that is in the best interests of education.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, the education authorities of the Roman Catholic Church also are
concerned about the proposal to extend the right to develop sixth forms. The education authorities of that Church attempt--rightly or wrongly, and I believe rightly--to ensure that there is a coherent provision for children whose Roman Catholic parents want them to have an education based on Christian values. In doing so, they have set up sixth-form colleges, in many cases very good ones.I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, made an important point about critical mass. I accept that the Government's philosophy is one of market forces. But while market forces sort themselves out, the education of a great many children could be destroyed through classes which are too small, making departments uneconomic, and preventing them from offering the degree of diversity and quality of education which those children deserve.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I support all the amendments in the group and I shall speak in particular to Amendment No. 18 to which I have put my name.
As has been made very clear again and again, this Bill would allow grant-maintained secondary schools without sixth forms to create a sixth form without that being regarded as a significant change of character.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, all of us who have been involved with this Bill have been inundated with correspondence from those concerned about sixth-form education in this country. They have produced well-argued cases on their problems and worries about the future of sixth-form education in this country. I was impressed by that and most of the people who have received that information have been impressed by it.
The current statutory procedures involving the Secretary of State in considering the question of costs, viability, increasing choice and diversity and the impact on existing provision before deciding whether a new sixth form can be established seem the minimum that would be required before giving permission for any new sixth form to be created. On the basis of this Bill which the Government are trying to bring forward, only a scheme with serious shortcomings, which has already been rejected in one of those areas, would be likely to set itself up. In other words, it is the sixth forms which have already been rejected by that procedure that one can confidently expect to be among the first to be established once the floodgates open and they no longer have to go through the procedure which the Secretary of State has applied so far in giving permission.
Until now the Secretary of State has always paid attention to the views of the Further Education Funding Council, the Funding Agency for Schools and local education authorities. I have always understood that the reason for that wide range of consultation was that it has always been recognised that as regards sixth forms, education and training provided those much wider than the schools system. Changes in numbers of sixth-form places will affect both the existing provision and the planning of all the other providers.
Amendment No. 18 seeks specifically to make sure that before a new sixth form can be established, consideration will have to be given to the range of courses available and the quality of the teaching. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has already made clear, those are surely legitimate interests for any prospective pupil. As well as that, consideration must be given to the impact on provision elsewhere. It would also ensure that consideration would be given to the question of young people who may be denied a place in a school sixth form if the school wishes to change its entry requirements.
I can only repeat the point made already about these amendments and this amendment in particular. The intention is not to prevent a school from opening a new sixth form; nor even to stop a school with a sixth form from becoming wholly selective. It is merely to ensure that schools making such significant changes, with wide-ranging ramifications, should be subject to a fairer process of consultation and approval than would be the case if these amendments are not carried.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, drew attention to the concerns of the Roman Catholic Education Service. I mentioned those concerns in Committee and I am glad that he has reiterated them. As he pointed out, the Roman Catholic Church has largely followed the route of providing sixth-form education through sixth-form colleges. The Church of England has done that more through sixth forms. Nevertheless, the same considerations would apply.
I should like to add one point to those which have been made already. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, used a mathematical illustration in talking about critical mass. I agree with the points that she made. The point about equilibrium is equally significant. It seems to me that under the proposals in the Bill it would be possible for a school to make a decision which would disturb the existing equilibrium, which is very positive. In a neighbourhood there are schools of different types and traditions. I can think of one town within my diocese where the provision comes from the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, a former grammar school and two other county secondary schools, which among them provide a splendid cross-section of opportunity for sixth-form pupils. It seems to be entirely right that any school which wanted to disturb that equilibrium should be subject to certain considerations and not be deregulated as proposed in the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in supporting the amendments I could reiterate the arguments about the prudent use of public funds; I could reiterate the arguments about the limitations on the breadth of curriculum being offered; I could point out the risk of inadequate teaching; I could even reiterate the arguments that I used in connection with the previous amendment--that it was going against John Major's classless society aspirations. But in some respects, this amendment is too important for that.
I give an example of what I mean. Between the age of 16 and 18 I had the privilege of going to the North-East Essex Technical College and School of Art, which was effectively comprehensive tertiary sector provision. I was taking A-levels, as were a large number of other students. But there were also young people on vocational courses and I can remember in particular a bricklaying course. There was also a strong music school.
One of the problems which this country faces over the next few years is the need to ensure that we have the technical and vocational teaching which is so essential to provide the technicians who will produce the wealth of our country over the next 10 or 20 years. Japan, Germany, France and even the United States are producing far more of that calibre of student than we are. On the other side, we have almost an over-provision of undergraduate courses and graduates. The Government are talking of reducing the number of graduates because there are not enough economic openings for them in terms of jobs. I argue that we desperately need to improve education and training at the vocational level, particularly between the ages of 16 and 18, which is the age group that we are talking about.
Over the past few years we have heard how the number of students at universities or university-type institutions undertaking an undergraduate course has exploded. I believe that it is now more than 30 per cent. of that age group. I do not believe that we need many more graduates from universities. But we are desperately in need of the young people who will power the manufacturing revival that we require to survive as a country. We need the vocational education for those between the ages of 16 and 18.
I would argue that one of the ways in which we can do that is by building a truly comprehensive sector of education for that peer group, so that the pupils who are taking A-levels are seen to go to the same institutions as the people who are taking courses in bricklaying and metalwork and those who are studying foreign languages and music. All those people are essential and there should be some parity of esteem. It is to be hoped that, with that parity of esteem, will come parity of funding and of emphasis; that--dare I say it?--even the middle classes will start to think that these are good places; and that it is essential to support them and thereby build up a virtuous spiral of activity that will enhance, enable and empower the people of this country to rise above the decline which has beset us over the past 20 years.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page