| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I should like to take a slightly different stance from other noble Lords in relation to this amendment. I do so on the grounds that I am by no means convinced that the requirement for an annual consideration will result in governing bodies increasing their selection. I take into account the parallel of the requirement that they should consider grant-maintained status. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, has said, the number of schools going for grant-maintained status is a very small proportion of the total: 1,200 out of 24,000.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, referred to a comment by my predecessor as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I believe that he commented that the provision for an annual consideration by governing bodies seemed to point to a loss of nerve on the part of the Government, who had to hold out some further inducement or requirement to persuade more schools to opt for this status. That took place against the background of a decision by the Board of Education (which I now chair) that it would be neither for nor against grant-maintained status but rather that it would recommend to the governors of each school the factors that should be taken into account in reaching a decision.
Nevertheless, the point made by my predecessor remains. The requirement to have an annual consideration appeared to be based on a slight failure of nerve that status itself would be sufficient inducement. But the outcome is that governors have not taken the road to grant-maintained status in large numbers. I believe that there is an argument that an annual requirement may have had the opposite effect and that governors have come to the clear view that they should
not take that particular route. I suggest that this requirement for an annual consideration may have the same result; namely, that governing bodies will reach the firm conclusion that selection is quite wrong for their schools.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I support the amendment. I should like to recount to your Lordships the experience of many governors who serve on school governing bodies, in particular parent governors. They are increasingly concerned that they are required to consider matters that they do not wish to consider because the Government have decided that they must do so. Many of them are also concerned about the demand on their time that is made by the tasks that they have taken on. First, governors are appointed on the basis laid down by the Conservative Government or Parliament. Surely, if the constituency of the particular governing body is that which the Government require, it is quite reasonable for the Government to leave it to that body to decide whether to consider a particular item at a particular meeting of that governing body.
Secondly, I should like to give strong support to the points made by my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington. In this country there is no doubt that the process of selection among the age group where it has occurred to the greatest extent has had two effects. One was that those who were put in what was normally the C stream of grammar schools viewed themselves as somehow below average ability. The other was that for those who failed the 11-plus it was a long period of time, in some cases well into adulthood, before anyone managed to convince them that they were capable of achieving high levels in terms of careers, aspirations and professional qualifications because the process of failure was so rigid. It was not the same as graduating from a primary school into a comprehensive secondary school and moving between those subject areas where it was possible for a pupil to be in set 1 for French and German and set 3 for mathematics so that the level of tuition was appropriate to the ability and aptitude of the child. That is one of the main concerns about the selection process.
At previous stages in the Bill the Minister has been quick to say, "no secondary modern schools". Perhaps the Minister will say what in the Government's view, and in the campaign that they are about to mount for a grammar school in every town, would be the logical number of non-grammar schools to have in relation to the number of pupils in the area. If a locality had four secondary schools, would it be possible for it to decide to call them all grammar schools? If only a certain percentage will be able to call themselves grammar schools and be selective, what will be the ratio of pupils in that school to those who cannot go to the school?
There is one minor correction I would make to what my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington said. For every successful child there is not just one unsuccessful child. On average, for every successful child there are three unsuccessful children.
As my noble friend Lord Morris said at the beginning of the debate, if we look at this country's economic performance, at this stage we do not need a few highly
educated people and a large number of hewers of wood; we need a highly articulate, highly skilled and highly flexible workforce. The worst possible way to achieve that is by dampening their self-esteem and self-expectation through a process by which the majority are told that they are failures.6 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may start by disabusing the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, of a number of misapprehensions from which I believe he suffers. First, he seemed to imply that grant-maintained schools are selective. That is not the case. There are grant-maintained schools which are selective; there are grant-maintained which are partially selective; there are grant-maintained which are specialist schools; and the vast majority of grant-maintained schools are fully comprehensive. The whole grant-maintained movement has nothing to do with going selective. One should divorce the two.
Secondly, the noble Lord implied that we had never answered the question about choice if there were not enough places. If the noble Lord looks back to my former interventions at earlier stages of the Bill--possibly on Second Reading, and certainly in Committee--he will see that I have always made it clear that choice can never be 100 per cent.; choice is never total; choice is, by definition, always limited. That will always be the case and always must be the case. It is limited by various other constraints.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so soon. If the Minister or the Minister in another place said that, it would be nice to have the references, but that is something with which we can deal later. What I do grumble about, and I thought that I had made it clear, is that the Government will not say that. They always talk about parental choice, and that is all, giving the impression that parents will go to any school of their own choice without any equivocation of any kind. That is the impression that the Government give, and it is just not true.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord has that impression. I have always been at pains, as I think have others, to say that we want to encourage choice and diversity so far as that is possible. We have always recognised that it cannot be 100 per cent.
The third matter about which the noble Lord asked was as to what was happening in the rest of Europe. Again, that was an issue raised on Second Reading and on other occasions. I have a little list that might be of interest to the noble Lord. He will discover that they have selective schemes in Austria, Belgium, Germany--its economic performance over the years is much admired by many--Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and, as we know, Northern Ireland, because I quoted the example on Second Reading of the selective system in Northern Ireland, where overall the results are considerably better than those in the UK. I appreciate that they have a comprehensive system in France which is selective in parts and in Greece, Italy,
Ireland, Portugal and Spain. I understand that there are unitary systems (primary and secondary education in single schools) in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway. I believe that covers virtually all the countries of western Europe. I appreciate that I do not seem to have anything about Liechtenstein, Andorra or San Marino, but perhaps they are too small to count.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I believe that there is only one secondary school in San Marino.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I suspected that that was probably going to be the answer. Liechtenstein and Andorra I shall leave to others more expert than myself. This House normally produces an expert on most subjects. No doubt in due course an expert will emerge who can inform us about those countries.
I want to make it clear to those who have been peddling the idea that every country was pursuing a purely comprehensive system that that is just not the case. There is a range of different options--many equally valid. The debate should not be about selection per se but about considering selection.
When talking about selection, noble Lords imply that if we are talking about grammar schools, that, by definition, means that all others cannot be comprehensive. That is not the case. There is a case for some fully selective schools, some partially selective schools, some comprehensive schools and some specialist schools. If noble Lords are saying that every time we set up a specialist school or a partially selective school, that means that the other schools in the area cannot be comprehensive, they are making the case for getting rid of all schools other than fully comprehensive schools. We would have to get rid of the private sector, selective schools and specialist schools. Further, we would have to go on bussing pupils around to ensure that every school is a perfect match with whatever community it is supposed to be, because there is always selection by means of mortgage and people moving around.
Noble Lords cannot have it both ways. If they accept that there is a case for the specialist schools--I believe that the party opposite has now done so--they cannot then say that the existence of those specialist schools will prevent other schools from being fully comprehensive. The debate is about whether schools should go selective should they so wish. We believe that selection is an important matter. It is one that deserves proper consideration as part of the school's strategy for improving standards and responding to parental attitudes. We impose the same requirement on governing bodies to consider whether they should go grant-maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke about a school of which he was a governor. The governors felt that they had to produce new reasons every year. I do not believe that that is the case. It is important that schools consider each year whether to go selective. It is important to remind the House that when the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, says that the grant-maintained movement has been a failure, it has not been a failure: 20 per cent. of
secondary school children are now in grant-maintained schools. The important point to remember is that only one out of every 10 parents has been given the chance to have a ballot, because only one out of 10 governing bodies has offered a ballot to those parents. Out of those one out of 10 who has been so offered a ballot, some three-quarters or thereabouts have gone grant-maintained.I suggest to all those school governors, and particularly the LEA governors on those schools, that they should take the risk of offering the parents the chance to have their schools go grant-maintained. They might then find that many more schools would go grant-maintained. However, if they have the courage of their convictions and feel that the movement has been a failure, then obviously the ballots will turn out as the noble Lord said.
The clause does not place any requirement on the schools to introduce or extend selection. All it does is require the governing bodies to consider that matter. We believe that it is right that the governing bodies should consider selection at least once a year. Local circumstances and local opinion can change. It is right that the governing body should keep those issues under review and be ready to respond. The clause will ensure that governing bodies consider introducing or extending selection on a regular basis.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, suggested that this provision was unpopular with the population at large and with parents. The noble Lord, as his party always does, relied upon opinion polls. The noble Lord will know from the last election, and no doubt following this election, that I do not always have the same faith in polls and surveys as the party opposite likes to place in them. Not all of them are as conclusive as the noble Lord suggests. He will remember the one I cited on Second Reading from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. It showed that a majority of parents was in favour of selection.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page