| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support my noble friend. The amendments seek to remove something which already happens. Going through a process of selection does not add anything because everything that has to be done will be discussed and has been discussed. I do not know how many times we have sat in this Chamber discussing various processes and when one should review education selection. I wonder how many hours of parliamentary time have been used by this particular subject.
Basically, what always happens is we say that we must discuss this. The Government say that this must happen and then we say that it is already happening. The Government say that they will bring the issue forward again. We then find that it has been discussed on a vast number of occasions. The matter is then
nodded at in a meeting and the whole issue is put back for another year. We can safely say that this discussion has taken place on other occasions and that we do not need to have it again. We can save the shorthand typists who are minuting various meetings a great deal of trouble if these amendments are accepted.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I oppose these two clauses because I find them offensive. I have attended a good many meetings in my time, as I am sure most of your Lordships have, including governors' meetings. I find the notion of being told what to discuss by some outside body something of an insult to one's intelligence. It is unnecessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has already pointed out, and it adds another burden to already crowded agendas and annual reports.
Governors are quite capable of reviewing their admissions policy at any stage without prompting from on high. But, of course, this is part of the Government's continuing tactic of tilting the playing field at key points in order to make it more likely to get the result they want. A governing body may have no particular desire for selection, but eventually, given time, on some 'flu-ridden winter's evening the decision may scrape through and, bingo, the thing is done!
I vividly recall our debates during the passage of the 1993 Education Bill over the very similar proposal, already mentioned, for considering opting out. It was the right reverend Prelate the then Bishop of Guildford who, I thought, summed up the position with clarity and perception when he said that the insertion of the clause in question betrayed
- "a slight loss of nerve"
as he put it, on the Government's part, as if the benefits on offer could not speak clearly for themselves. He added that he was surprised to see such a clause inserted; that he would be far happier to see it deleted; and that there was such a thing as "administrative fidgeting". Clauses 2 and 9 are prime examples of "administrative fidgeting". Do the Government believe that schools will be unaware, after the passage of this Bill, that they can raise the issue of selection? The idea is not credible. These are nannying clauses, they are manipulative and they should have no place in this Bill.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it will do no harm to repeat two of the objections to this clause, which have already been set out by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. Those two main objections are, first, that the clause is unnecessary. That has already been said, and I should have thought that it was self-evident. Secondly, the clause is yet a further imposition on the conduct of governing bodies, as was stated so fluently by the noble Earl, and on the content of their annual reports.
I was intrigued by what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said. Perhaps I may say how valuable it is that in your Lordships' House we should be able to hear from people who have, almost literally, daily experience of governing bodies. To hear that the noble Lord's governing body, which is so manifestly a conscientious body, has to think of one or two extra reasons for not
being grant-maintained and has to include them on last year's report makes one think that in about 10 years' time it will have about 15 reasons for replying in that form.The date of the general election has been announced today. There is at least one part of this Bill--this clause is connected with it to a large extent--which will help to defeat the Government at that election in a few weeks' time. I am not only surprised--I am bewildered--that the Government should include such provisions in this Bill and that they have placed so much stress upon them, as does Clause 2. I refer of course to selection. We are constantly told that parents want selection--indeed, that they clamour for it. Who do the Government talk to about it? The polls all show little support for selection. The last one that I saw showed 70 per cent. against. Anecdotal evidence is strongly opposed to it and only a minority of professional educationists show any enthusiasm for it. Almost all Members of the Government--indeed, almost all Members of the Benches opposite--send their children to public schools--but perhaps I had better say to "private" schools. That is selection by money. That shows an inbuilt bias towards selection on the part of the Conservative party.
I should like to say a few words about selection, and about what was once the most frequently discussed aspect of it, but which has not been mentioned very much for some time. I refer to the fallibility of the selection process. I should have thought that the weakness of examination, interview or any other type of selection technique at about 11 years of age has been discredited for many years now. Perhaps I may add a personal note and say that this matter has affected my own family in recent weeks and months. I hesitate to take us back to my 11-plus days because they are so long ago. I mention this only because the same difficulties occur now as occurred all those years ago. When I went to grammar school, I left behind pals who for years had been brighter than I was at school. What happened to them? Almost all of them went down the pit, as they would do in County Durham where there was virtually no other employment. The tragedy of that waste still haunts me, not least because so many of my friends died prematurely with coal dust on their lungs. I saw the same thing happening as a teacher, and particularly as an education officer who had to administer such schemes.
No one is more conscious of that weakness than parents. I find it impossible to understand why the Government's policies, as in this clause, fly in the face of such overwhelming evidence. They have the evidence of the success of so many comprehensive schools. It is widespread evidence because some 90 per cent. of our children now attend such schools and--this is highly significant--we see no demand for a change in that particular system. There have been proposals for more selection in some areas, all of which were strongly rejected, so far as I am aware. If any of those proposals have been adopted, I hope that the Minister will tell us in his reply. Perhaps he could tell us where that has happened and how the adoptions compare with the
rejections. More recently, we have had evidence from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools of the success of so much comprehensive education. I often wonder how much more evidence the Government need on this matter.I turn to the criticism which is constantly made and which has been repeated many times in debates on this Bill in both Houses. It is an obvious criticism, but it is not recognised by the party opposite although I am sure that some Conservative Members must feel uneasy about it. For every child who is selected, one child cannot be selected. How many times do we have to say that? It is patently obvious, yet we have the inanity of the Prime Minister repeatedly calling for a grammar school in every town. If he is the honest man that he is supposed to be, and claims to be, I wonder when he will change his speech and say that he advocates secondary moderns--or any other name for them--in every town, because that is exactly what recommending grammar schools implies. The Government have never given an answer on this issue. That is not surprising because there is no completely satisfactory answer. They say, "Yes, we shall make the necessary provision in the non-grammar schools". But if the schools are different, as they are by definition, how can that be done? We ought to be told. Let it be repeated again and again that selection means grammar school for Jimmy but not for Jenny, regardless of whether the names "grammar school" and "secondary modern" are retained or changed.
That point is closely linked to the Government's favourite word and thought: "choice". I put to the Minister a question which I have posed both to him and to his predecessors on a number of occasions. If parents want their child to go to a school which has more applicants than places, what then? Parental choice cannot be met. The Government should be honest and say that there is no such thing as complete freedom of choice, but that is never said. I recall in a previous debate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon saying--I hope that I am right; the right reverend Prelate will correct me if I am wrong--that in Ripon itself there are only two schools. I see that the right reverend Prelate is agreeing with my interpretation. One is a grammar school and the other is a non-grammar school. It is pretty obvious--indeed, I believe that the right reverend Prelate said so--that it is not possible in the case of the grammar school for all parents to get what they desire. So much for parental choice.
The position is exacerbated by this Bill. It is certainly not helped by the clause which is now under discussion. As has been said many times, selection means selection by the school, not by the parents. Selection by ability means exactly that. That in turn means that the degree of choice is reduced for those parents whose children do not meet the entrance criteria decided by the school.
There are two closely connected issues to this aspect of the Bill. The first is the question of providing for consultation. We have just had a debate relating to that and I shall not repeat what has been said although I hope that the Government will take cognisance of the substantial contributions that have been made. Let us not forget that the proposed changes are of fundamental
importance to a child's education, so the decisions have to be correct. Changes can alter the nature of a school to a very significant degree.Parents and prospective parents may, where the school is grant-maintained, be denied the right to express a choice on the nature of a school unless the governing body decides to give them the opportunity to do so. That is a most scandalous situation. Why should such fundamental decisions be taken by the governing body without any reference to the community which the school is meant to serve? Again, my noble friend Lord Morris stressed that point in a recent contribution. The Government will reply that the governing bodies must "have regard to" the guidance published by the Secretary of State. I suggest that that is mere lip service to genuine consultation. The change in the nature and character of a school affects all the schools in the neighbourhood--how many times has that been said during our debates on this Bill?--and is therefore a matter for the whole neighbourhood. Why should the Government be afraid of that? I can think of one good reason. The grant-maintained type school was and is a flagship of the Government. Not only has it failed; it has failed miserably. The Government expected overwhelming support for GM status. After all the publicity, not to say incentives, only some 1,200 schools out of 26,000 have opted for grant-maintained status.
The Government say that it was never their expectation that there would be a massive change. That is simply not true. They have changed their tune because of the response. When the scheme was being introduced we were told many times that there was an overwhelming desire on the part of local communities and parents to adopt such a proposal. It is no wonder that there is such a reluctance to consult in a proper and honest way. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, made that point in a previous contribution.
I said that there were two connected matters in relation to this part of the Bill's proposals. The second aspect is wider accountability. I say "wider" because the whole of a community or neighbourhood is affected by a change in one school. There is, therefore, a role for the LEA. Opinions differ about the work and quality of LEAs but they are elected and represent a wider area. They are accountable and can weigh in the balance all of the changes being made in their areas. That is a crucial role which, by definition, is denied to governing bodies. There is no other body that can perform this role. Having regard to the Government's record on consultation and lack of sympathy for local authorities, their assurance on consultation is unacceptable. Stronger provision should be included in the Bill, in particular in Clause 2 which we are now considering.
I would genuinely like to know--because I do not know--how many of our partners in the European Union have selective systems of education. My impression is that few of them have. Indeed, none of them places much reliance on selection of the kind promoted by this Government. Because of the stress placed by the Government on the need for a well educated and trained workforce to enable us to compete in the EU and the world, the question I ask is: who does not need that? We all do. What cannot be denied is that
present policies in this country are directed to the few and not the many. That speaks for itself. Every worker has to make his or her contribution towards our success, and it is the education system which is the foundation for all of it. For the sake of emphasis, I repeat that the Government's policies do not meet the views of parents, schools and others as to how progress is to be made.As to choice--a matter so often repeated by the Government--appeals by parents whose children have not been offered the places of their choice have exploded from 21,000 in 1989-90 to 54,427 in 1994-95. As to the demand for increased selection, when the DfEE consulted on whether to raise the level of selection from 10 to 15 per cent., only 1 per cent. of consultees were in favour of it. That sounds like a rigged ballot. In the past five years only 24 schools have applied to select more than 10 per cent. of their intake and less than 4 per cent. of grant-maintained schools have applied to select up to 10 per cent. of their intake. Those figures have been taken either from Parliamentary Questions or the Library.
Your Lordships' House is a revising chamber. As a revising chamber it is expected to examine arguments objectively. The evidence against increased selection is so overwhelming that surely noble Lords from all parties will reject Clause 2, which is one of the principles of the Bill.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page