| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I did not give a caricature and my point did not apply to all such schools but to very many of them. I see many schools and know that some schools are as the noble Lord described. However, to give a counter-example, there was an excellent sixth form college in Bristol that the Catholic Church closed because it could not find enough Catholics for it. As he will remember, that caused a great furore at the time.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord makes the case for the integrated nature of Church schools and Church education. As he said, if there are not enough people from a particular denomination, those schools simply do not survive. The figures show that across the country, more than 20 per cent of those in Catholic schools come from outside the Catholic Church. That does not bear out the proposition that he placed before your Lordships' House.
I declare an interest by virtue of the chair that I hold at Liverpool John Moores University and as a foundation governor of the Liverpool Bluecoat School. Perhaps more relevantly, before going to another place, I spent seven years as a teacher. For five years I worked in the state sector with children with special needs, and the two years before that I worked in the voluntary aided sector in a Church school in Kirby, on the outskirts of Liverpool. I strongly welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, on the nature of those schools in that area. I am a product of Church education myself and my four children are currently being educated in a Church school. I therefore recognise what he and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said about the way in which those schools have risen to the challenge—I stress that it is a challenge—of ensuring that we do not slide into sectarianism or division. We need to draw out the best—the generosity of spirit—that is deep inside every person and which is waiting to manifest itself if only it can be drawn out.
In broadly welcoming the general thrust of the Bill, I shall at this stage raise only two questions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who said that there will be plenty of time at later stages of the Bill to debate our many other questions. My first question is about the general level of morale—many people in the teaching profession feel a sense of devaluation. My second question involves the question of ideology.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that we must concentrate most during the passage of the Bill on the immediate needs of teachers. I entirely agree with her. The National Union of Teachers says that of every 100 final-year trainee teachers, 40 will not enter the classroom and a further 18 will leave the profession within three years. The Government's own figures, published in February, put the number of vacancies over the past year at more than 5,000. Although there are 7,000 more teachers than 12 months ago—I congratulate the Government on that and welcome the figure—we are still not keeping pace with need.
Mike Tomlinson, the Chief Inspector of Schools, candidly admits in his annual report that mathematics, science, foreign languages, religious education and design and technology have all been adversely affected. He said:
- "Where a subject is taught by a high proportion of teachers with limited qualifications in the subject, this lack of subject knowledge manifests itself in lower expectations, weaker teaching, and less effective learning in the subject".
In September, school rolls will swell by about 40,000 pupils. That will require 2,000 extra teachers just to keep class sizes at their present levels. Alan Smithers, who is director of Liverpool University's centre for education and employment, has warned that,
- "staff may be expected to teach outside their subject or the continuity of children's education could be put at risk by a succession of supply staff".
The significant increase in the use of supply staff is one of the least-observed changes in our schools and one which I should like to be capped in the Bill. Of the 465,000 teachers in the UK, 19,000 are supply teachers. That figure is up from 12,000 in 1995. Education Data Surveys has put the costs to schools at around £600 million, with agencies taking some £200 million of that. One London school has spent £37,000 on supply staff and it is estimated that it costs schools up to £200 per day simply to hire one supply teacher. That raises questions about the effects not only on school budgets but also on stability and quality. I would welcome the Minister's response to the chief inspector's comment that supply teachers,
- "perform less well than any other category of teacher; with less than half of their lessons being good or better compared with two thirds of the lessons of qualified and permanent members of staff".
It is especially sad that that should be so when general standards have been improving significantly. It is also sad that the problem is at its worst in what are already the most disadvantaged areas.
The cost of recruitment is also becoming wholly disproportionate. Last summer, one head teacher spent more than £35,000 on agency fees in an attempt to recruit staff. Others have had to fund visits overseas to find teachers. Whether those costs come from the Government's recruitment and retention fund or from school budgets, it is money that could be better used. Liverpool University's research claims that pupil behaviour is the second most common reason given by teachers for leaving the profession. No one would disagree with the Warwick University study—it has already been referred to in this debate—which reported that 80 per cent of teachers believe that pupil behaviour has deteriorated during their time as teachers. I hope that the Minister will tell us, perhaps when she replies tonight, how the Government's new initiatives on exclusion and problem pupils are developing.
Teachers need to be retained and new ones recruited; that, rather than over-reliance on supply teachers, is what we need. If the immediate haemorrhage is to be averted, it will require more drastic measures to reduce teacher workload and to enhance the professional status of teachers. That will need to be accompanied by less emphasis on targets—that point has been made by several noble Lords—and more emphasis on the children who are being educated and on the vocational calling of the teaching profession.
If it is important to address questions about teachers' status and morale, it is also important to avoid an overly dogmatic and ideological approach, which can undermine schools and teachers. In so far as
the Bill seeks to free teachers and schools in that regard, I welcome that. However, the imposition of a mandatory quota, which we fought in another place, is the reverse of that trend. That is an affront to schools in the voluntary aided sector and such diktats should be vigorously resisted. I congratulate the Government on having done so.At the end of World War II, many aspirations were properly met in what Estelle Morris, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, described in another place as the historic concordat between the state and the Church. That became the foundation of the Education Act 1944. That legislation was the fruit of a remarkable partnership between a Conservative and Anglican, R. A. Butler, and the Labour Member, Chuter Ede, a Free Church man. Butler was President of the Board of Education and Chuter Ede was his Private Parliamentary Secretary.
It is extraordinary that that legislation—it is perhaps the most important legislation of the 20th century—has stood us in such good stead for so long. It stands in sharp contrast to the overly partisan, ill-considered, meretricious and often contradictory changes that central government and local authorities have imposed on education during the 50 years that followed. Among many other things, the 1944 Act provided a small grant towards the cost of building Church schools.
Following that Act—the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned this—the Church of England decided to scale down significantly its commitment to education. Of the 9,000 Church of England schools in existence in 1944, nearly half have closed. However, in total in the UK today, there are 6,384 religious primary schools and 589 secondary schools of different denominations. All but 40 of them are Christian. What signal does that send—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, in this regard—in multicultural, multiracial Britain? The suggestion is that some Church schools may exist—no noble Lord has argued that we should close down those schools—but that people from other faiths will not be permitted to have similar schools. I notice that a noble Lord on the Back Benches opposite is shaking his head and suggesting that that is what he supports.
Following the publication of the report of my noble friend Lord Dearing, the decision of the Church of England to create new faith schools is, I believe, a welcome recognition of the need to change. Many people, some of only nominal belief, want an education which offers more than places in the academic league tables. The Church of England has some 775,000 places in its primary schools but only 150,000 places in its secondary schools. Clearly there is an unmet demand.
In another place it was suggested, and implied again in an earlier speech today, that the allocation of places in the present system is based upon hypocrisy. One honourable Member in another place said:
- "Many people suddenly find a faith and start going to church"—
According to Dr Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi—I agree with him—
- "Denominational schools have a great strength. Often they have a clear ethos that gives consistency and power to the lessons they teach".
- "are less likely to lie, steal or to drink alcohol illicitly . . . the evidence is that teaching about the morality of everyday life does make a difference".
The imposition of arbitrary quotas will undermine ethos but it will also undermine the self-governance which allows Church schools to determine their own composition. And such questions must be determined locally according to local needs and circumstances.
As I heard personally from teachers working in Church schools in Oldham—a part of the country referred to during the debate—they place a great premium on preparing their children for active citizenship and for the responsibilities that that entails. To imply otherwise illustrates a profound ignorance of what goes on in those schools.
Lorna Fitzsimons, the Member of Parliament for Rochdale, said in a very good speech in another place that when she looked into the disruptions and rioting that had taken place in Oldham, she found that those involved had not been educated in Church schools; they were children from non-integrated state schools where it may certainly be the case that the whole basis of teaching citizenship should be reconsidered.
I end with a quotation from the Archbishop of Birmingham, Vincent Nichols. In a trenchant and hard-hitting statement he expressed his anger at the caricature of Catholic education, saying that Catholic schools are the fruit of "a struggle" to which Catholic parents,
- "have contributed financially for many generations".
- "Admission quotas could effectively undermine the cohesiveness of the school".
In welcoming the general thrust of the Bill, I hope that, when we come to consider it further, we shall resist the temptation to break the concordat and the trust that exists between faith schools and the state; that we shall recognise the extraordinary contribution that these schools make; that we shall strongly affirm them as a valued and integral part of the provision of education in this country; and that we shall not add to the pressures that already affect the teaching profession.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I welcome some parts of the Bill, not because the Bill is long and complex, which it
certainly is, but because I believe that it takes some steps in the right direction. It consolidates some law, introduces new freedoms for schools and LEAs to get on with the job and introduces new legislation which I believe will be of benefit to children, young people, schools, their communities and local government.However, I have three main concerns which I shall speak about shortly. I start with three positive aspects about the Bill: the opportunities for local government; the opportunities to reform 14-to-19 education; and the opportunities for new forms of governance.
I turn, first, to the subject of local government. There is much in the Bill for local government to do, although it does not appear that all those involved appreciate that. I know that there are concerns about the imposition of a minimum schools budget, and I look forward to hearing the Government justify that new power for the Secretary of State.
Although the new power may detract from the freedom of local authorities to determine local needs and allocate resources accordingly, education is a national service and there has always been an element of national responsibility in spending on what is a national investment in our future. I hope that local authorities will be able to use the new responsibilities in the Bill positively.
The duty to co-ordinate admissions arrangements gives LEAs a responsibility to overcome some of the problems with the present admission arrangements. I should have liked to see the Government do more in relation to admissions. Who will determine the criteria for admissions? Where is that to go? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those questions. Part 1 of the Bill allows LEAs, together with their schools, to propose new ways of working—innovation to raise educational standards. Innovation has to be welcomed. I wish that perhaps education law had not become so restrictive and that the innovation that occurred in Cambridgeshire under Henry Morris could have happened without recourse to the Secretary of State. There are concerns about how the new powers to innovate will affect teachers and young people. I look forward to the debates which we are bound to have on that issue.
I welcome the Government's Green Paper on 14-to-19 education, Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards, and the parts of the Bill which support it—particularly the new definition of secondary education in Clause 170—which will enable vocational education to take place off school premises for children at the end of their secondary education. I shall be interested in the debates on the new powers for the Learning and Skills Council to rationalise sixth form provision. I have always felt that small sixth forms are uneconomic and that they do not provide a wide enough choice of subjects for children to follow. Again, I look forward very much to what I imagine will be heated debates on that subject.
I have known many attempts to develop educational provision for the 14-to-16 group, particularly during the last half century. All have been found wanting in
some respects, but I hope that the proposals will provide a coherent system which meets the needs of young people. I like the greater flexibility.I welcome the Bill's provision for new forms of school governance, particularly with federated schools and extended schools. Cambridgeshire pioneered extended schools more than 60 years ago with the creation of community colleges. Those secondary schools provided not only education for young people but learning opportunities for adults. One of the great challenges of education today is how to get schools to work together for the benefit of all the young people in an area, and those not so young as well. That could be assisted by federating schools. I look forward to hearing from the Government how that will be done while still preserving the character of individual schools.
I have three concerns about the Bill, two of which mainly relate to what is not in the Bill. I am concerned about the additional bureaucracy, workload and central powers in the Bill, and about the DfES's transforming secondary school programme and whether it will cause disparity of funding between schools. Lastly, I am concerned about the policy on faith schools.
I turn to the issues of bureaucracy, workload and central powers. There will be an increase in workload. Every new Bill, especially one which is 210 clauses long, requires new things to be done, new strategies to be worked on, new ways of funding and new targets to be met. I want schools to provide education and I want teachers to teach and not fill out forms. I support what the Government have done with the teachers in reviewing workload. I hope that it is successful, but I want to know whether the Bill will help or hinder the work of schools.
Along with the additional workload, the Bill also gives the Secretary of State more powers. I hope that we shall be able to scrutinise those new powers in Committee. I am not against shifting legislation from the statute book, but it does need care so that the key principles of what is being attempted are set out in primary legislation while the details are in secondary legislation or, if possible, abandoned altogether. At present the detail in regulations can be enormous. The school government regulations is a sizeable book covering 57 regulations and six schedules. The accompanying DfES Guide to the Law for School Governors is a large A4 folder. I hope that we can find ways of reducing the amount of legislation if not in this Bill perhaps in the next one. Are we to have a consolidated education Bill? We certainly need one.
I know that Opposition parties will make much of the taking of central powers and additional bureaucracy. I hope that the Government will be able to defuse the debate by recognising that much detailed work needs to take place to reform the nature of education legislation. Perhaps the Government will make proposals about how education law will be reformed; otherwise, I fear that that may take up much time in Committee when we should be discussing the new proposals.
While I wish to support the thrust of the Government's proposals on transforming secondary education, I am concerned that there will be back-door selection by secondary schools that receive Beacon or specialist school status. Although there is not much in the Bill about improving secondary education, I am concerned about the academies and how they may disrupt the existing arrangements for school choice. The Bill also gives the Secretary of State new grant-giving powers to reward schools that have achieved a new status.
I am concerned that there should be equality of funding between schools and that the Secretary of State should not use those powers to fund schools more generously because of their perceived performance. I would have thought that as a basic principle—one that the Labour Opposition used to oppose grant-maintained schools—pupils should not have more money spent on their education because of the accident of which school they happen to attend. The Higher Education Consortium for Special Education is anxious about that.
The Government do not need to legislate to bring about more faith schools or to extend the range of faiths that have voluntary-aided status. A century ago the future of Church schools was the main educational debate in England. This year is the centenary of one of the major pieces of education legislation which brought religious schools under the management of the local authorities. The Education Act 1902 affected the politics of the rest of the decade, with various Liberal government attempts to undo it, mainly stopped by the House of Lords. I suspect that in the next century this House will still be debating faith schools.
I want to quote from an article on exclusion and inclusion, by Amartya Sen, a Nobel prize winner. He finds that faith-based schools are divisive and damaging, as I do, despite the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Sheppard. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, towards the end of his speech, was moving in that direction as well. The article states:
- "the public policy of placing children in faith-based schools . . . may sometimes come with a severe reduction of educational opportunities that could help informed choice on how to live. The purpose of education is not only to inform a child about different cultures in the world (including the one to which his or her family may, in one way or another, belong), but also to help the cultivation of reasoning and the exercise of freedom in later life. Something very important is lost if the doors of choice are firmly shut on the face of young children, on the misguided belief that tradition makes choice unnecessary . . . You may think I am talking about Madrassas in Pakistan, or religious schools here, but I am actually talking about also Britain. Such has been the state of confusion about identities, and the force of the implicit belief that a person has no choice over priorities regarding his identity, that nothing particularly wrong is seen in the lack of choice for children in the new dispensation regarding 'faith-based schools' (Muslim or Hindu or Christian) in the new multi-ethnic Britain. The human right that is lost in this is, of course, the children's right to a broad education that prepares them to choose, rather than just to follow".
As a postscript to that—Amartya Sen mentions children's rights—I raise a point that I have often raised in this House, that is the right of children to express their views and to have them taken seriously
within education. When in opposition during the passage of the Education Act 1994 Labour advocated strongly in both Houses for the right of pupils to be consulted about matters that affect them. We lost the argument then but society and politics have moved on. These days there can be few politicians who reject the logic and principle of listening to children and including them appropriately in decisions about their education and about the running of their schools.Increasingly, children and young people are encouraged to take active roles in their local communities and in improving the design and delivery of public services. The Government have issued guidance to all government departments requiring them to produce action plans for involving children and young people in developing policies and services. The time is now absolutely right for children and young people to be given a statutory entitlement to consultation about decisions in education that affect them. Scottish children already have such a right, introduced through the Standards in Scotland's Schools Act 2000.
I am aware that the Government have offered guidance on that, but that is not enough. Such guidance will simply encourage good schools and others will leave it to gather dust. It has to be on the face of the Bill, as in Scotland. I hope that the Minister can comment on that in her reply.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, although I am not sure that I agree with all the reservations expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady David, I wholeheartedly agree with her questions on the meaning of certain parts of the Bill. I believe that elaboration is required.
I want to touch on three aspects of the Bill. First, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said in her forceful speech, that it would be churlish of those on this side of the House not to recognise that the Bill has many good aspects. Its objective is to raise standards in secondary schools in England and Wales, which we wholeheartedly welcome. For 20 years I have been arguing for four of the proposals outlined by the Minister. The first is greater delegation to head teachers, to classroom teachers and to governors.
When I was a special adviser in Downing Street, my Minister used to say, "Brian, teachers know far more about what to do in a classroom than you and I and we should not be as prescriptive as we look like being in legislation". Looking back, the legislation was far too prescriptive. The Bill gives greater flexibility on staffing; on the sharing of staff, with good departments linking up with departments in other schools; on employing people from further and higher education; on having trained assistants in the classroom—not equivalent to teachers but complementing them; on having greater flexibility in governance; and on encouraging innovation. The principle of delegation is to be welcomed.
Similarly, there should be a lighter touch on regulation when it is clear that a school does not need the degree of regulation that is in place. I was trained
as an economist. If one considers secondary education as an industry, one sees that it is an extraordinarily regulated industry. To the extent that this Bill deregulates, it is excellent.Thirdly, and perhaps a little contentiously, I feel that a major aspect of the Bill is extending diversity. I have never seen diversity as fundamentally opposed to the comprehensive principle. The kind of schools that we need in this country should be sufficiently diverse so that in a city a child can have a choice and say, "I want to go to a school that suits my needs best of all". I have seen the whole movement—city technology colleges, specialist schools and now academies and so on—as an attempt to extend that principle. If I were being romantic, my ideal would be a situation where every school in Britain was a specialist school. By having choice between specialist schools, we could help individual pupils realise their potential. Fourthly, greater transparency in funding appeals to me. We on this side of the House support the idea that money given to a local authority and an LEA gets into the classroom.
I believe, therefore, that the Bill has a logic to it. It states that we want to raise standards in secondary schools; and that we shall do so by delegating more, having lighter regulation, flexibility and different kinds of schools and ensuring that the money gets to the classroom. In saying that, noble Lords may feel that I should be speaking from the other side of the House. However, on reading the Bill on Saturday evening—it is not the best time to read a Bill as complex as this—I suddenly felt dismayed. On the one hand, the Bill puts forward these great principles. Nevertheless, I felt that they were being anchored in a sea of bureaucracy.
I give some examples. If a school wants to apply for exemptions on the curriculum it has, first, to consult the parents. If it wants to apply for exemption on pay and conditions of teachers, the Bill states that the school has to consult each teacher in the school and any others who may have an interest. A school cannot start a company without the explicit permission of the LEA. Further regulations will be introduced in which the LEA may be the supervising authority for the company. Providing community facilities seems an excellent idea. Again, the school has to go to the LEA; and again the LEA can issue regulations. There are two new advisory bodies: the schools forums; and the admissions forums. Again there will be more meetings and more regulation.
From talking to teachers, heads and governors, I believe that they want to be told: "This is what you have. Get on with it". The last thing they want is to be given freedom and alongside that freedom extra responsibility in terms of consultation, being part of new bodies and so on.
My next reservation—it has been mentioned forcefully already—relates to the Henry VIII powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State. I recognise that once one deregulates in this way, the Secretary of State has to have certain powers. If we give schools powers, for example, to borrow money and to start a
business, what will be the implication on the school if it goes bust? It is wrong to attack the issue simply as centralisation. A measure of centralisation is necessary. In the deregulation by the Conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s, we introduced an element of centralisation in order to make deregulation effective. But as my noble friend Lady Blatch said so forcefully, under Clause 2(1) the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may by order make provision,
- "conferring on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation".
My next point relates to Wales. I may part company from two previous fellow countrymen who spoke on the subject. Parts of the Bill relate to England and Wales, parts to England only and parts to Wales only. I seek guidance from the Minister on what this House can and cannot do in Committee in relation to Welsh issues. In this House, I have supported strongly, and believe in, devolution for Wales. However, I have a problem about why certain clauses of the Bill apply to England only and not to Wales. My problem is this. The Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Wales issued a paving document—it has been referred to already—entitled The Learning Country. That document is similar to a White Paper but totally different from the Bill. I am told that the Bill has not been discussed in a plenary session of the Welsh Assembly: that a statement was made and a few questions asked. The Education Committee took something like two hours to discuss the Bill.
The powers in Clauses 62 to 67 on academies, city colleges, and additional secondary schools relate only to England. I find it inconceivable that Wales could not also benefit from them. I find it inconceivable that some form of specialist school more suited to the community would not be as relevant in Swansea, Bridgend, Cardiff, Newport and the valleys as to England. I have no desire to question the integrity of the devolution process. We must respect the wishes of the people of Wales with respect to Welsh legislation. I do not question that. However, if an amendment were introduced enabling the Minister for Education in Wales to have the provision included in the Bill, it need not be taken up. But at least we would have passed primary legislation so that if the Minister changed her mind or another Minister of State came in with a different view, he or she would be able to do that. As drafted, the Bill is a missed opportunity for Wales. I should like to hear the Minister's views on the subject.
Thirdly, on the issue of faith schools, rarely do I find myself in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Baker. However, on this issue there is a nuance of difference. The White Paper was more fulsome on faith schools than the Minister today. The White Paper states that we wish to welcome faith schools with
a distinctive ethos and character into the maintained sector where there is clear local agreement. I believe that the present debate over faith schools was introduced by the wonderful report of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. What comes out of that report is that faith schools are very popular with parents. That is something we have to accept. Why are they popular with parents? As the right reverend Prelate said, they are popular partly because they have a distinctive ethos: a moral and spiritual basis for education. It is partly because of discipline and partly an expectation of good academic results.As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard, mentioned, most faith schools are genuine community schools. Church of England schools are there to serve the community as well as to teach Christian faith. They are not there to proselytise. We must remember that the Church of England became serious about education in 1811. It did so specifically to help poor communities which were suffering because of industrialisation. That was their rationale. Catholic schools were built up in the 19th century in order to help poor immigrant families and to bring them into an inclusive community. As the right reverend Prelate said, the Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that Church of England schools should not exclude people of other faiths and of no faith. The House of Bishops has said the same. I worship at All Souls Church, Langham Place, which is just at the top of Regent Street. We have a Church of England school. Forty-seven per cent of its pupils are Muslim. More than 50 per cent are from non-Christian faiths; 14 per cent are of no declared faith; only 35 per cent are Christian; and 12 per cent are Anglican. The reason that Church schools work is that they manage to bring together the home, the parish and the school. That is a tremendous advantage. Why interfere with it by having something like a 25 per cent quota?
I recognise that there are objections to Church schools. Some come from people who are declared to be secular. Amartya Sen may well be in that category. They feel that a secular foundation would be a better one. This is a great subject. We cannot go into it in any detail now. It seems to me that, as the Secretary of State for Education and Skills said, we are in danger of making Church schools a scapegoat for other problems.
Can anyone really believe that the lack of integrated schools in Northern Ireland is the reason for the issues which it faces when it has had, frankly, hundreds of years of discrimination against the Catholic community? Likewise, can people feel that in some of our inner cities—in towns of northern England where one has second generation immigrants who find it very difficult to find jobs—that faith schools can somehow explain the problem rather than the issue of poverty?
I would encourage anyone who has not done so to read the report of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. There is an enormous amount of good will in faith schools. My experience of them has been that they are not narrow, proselytising bodies but that they are there to
serve the community. Far from being divisive in our society I believe that they can be integrative. Therefore, I commend them to your Lordships.6.52 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I shall devote most of my remarks to faith schools. I welcome many of the provisions of the Bill. I should also like to say a few brief words, partly inspired by what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, about the diversity that the Bill will encourage which will not turn into rigidity, particularly at the age of 14.
I say that with some feeling since I failed the 11-plus. At the age of 14 it was assumed that I was someone of a practical bent. That turned out to be a completely false judgment. My first piece of career advice from the local authority careers adviser, so that I could begin to think about what I should major on in school, was that I might like to think of becoming a mastic asphalt spreader. As time went on, I became an academic philosopher. I do not know whether that has been to the benefit of the philosophical world, but it has certainly been to the benefit of the mastic asphalt spreading industry.
However, I do believe that it is very important that children in schools have many opportunities for change throughout their career. We do not want to be committed to lifelong learning beyond school with lots of new opportunities and so forth while the regulation of the school curriculum makes such changes less possible for young people.
I want to use my speech to express some anxieties about the provisions in the Bill which would allow for the potential expansion of faith-based schools. I fully accept that there are important arguments in favour of the establishment of such schools, but I still have misgivings. I want to make it clear from the start that my misgivings are not based on some kind of aggressive secularism. I have been a faithful member of the Church of England throughout my life. Indeed, I was accepted for ordination in that church in the 1960s. That was going to be my second career after mastic asphalt spreading. But, as time went on, I felt that I was not capable of the priesthood either.
My wife's first teaching post was in a Church of England school. My three sons attended Church infant to primary schools because they were our local schools. My youngest son is currently doing his teaching practice in a Roman Catholic school in Woking. A daughter-in-law teaches in a Church school. So I am not coming at this issue in an aggressively secular way. Nevertheless, I have qualms about the proposals in the Bill.
So, what are the arguments in favour of the expansion of state-funded faith schools? I think that we can distinguish five separate arguments. First, there is parental choice. Parents who profess strong moral and religious beliefs are entitled to have their children educated in a school where the ethos and the teaching represents their deeply held convictions.
Secondly, there is an argument about fairness and justice. The state has supported the establishment and maintenance of schools for Roman Catholics and
members of the Church of England. Therefore, in fairness, other denominations within Christianity, and other religions, should be able to use public funds to support education, consistent with the values, ethos and teaching of those religions.Thirdly, there are the results of such schools. It is argued that the schools produce good academic results; they have high standards of educational attainment, high levels of discipline and low levels of truancy and exclusion. Supporters argue—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was saying this—that there is a close correlation between the religious and moral ethos of these schools and those types of attainment.
Fourthly, in many areas of British society we are witnessing a decline in a sense of discipline, moral responsibility and moral authority. If society is to sustain high moral standards, that cannot be done primarily by the state. It has to be the job of parents, churches and schools in some kind of relationship. It is then claimed that Church schools bring together parents and schools in a common moral enterprise, and that that will have an impact on strengthening the moral fabric of society.
The fifth argument is the one that is I suppose reflected in the Runnymede report, which my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sheppard mentioned. It is that a sense of cultural and religious identity is essential for those who come from groups within society with a strong sense of those things. It is important that that is capable of being maintained rather than eroded through the educational system.
It is no part of my case to underestimate or belittle the importance of these arguments. What I want to do, however, is to look at the other side of the coin. It is surely vital for our society, as the noble Lord, Lord Moser, said, to have a sense of its own identity, of the common values that unite it—a sense of social cohesion. Collective action in both peace and war ultimately has to draw upon common beliefs and values—a sense of common citizenship.
At one time in British society these values and beliefs may have been a matter of tradition and habit. We shared, by and large, the same kind of moral heritage. Society was more homogeneous in cultural, religious and ethnic terms than it is now. In our day we cannot just assume a sense of common civic culture and a sense of civic virtue. It has to be worked on and created out of the many diverse groups that make up British society.
Given the importance of a sense of social cohesion, it is very important that we do not go too far down the road of emphasising what is sometimes called "the politics of difference"—what separates us rather than what unites us in the exercise of a sense of common citizenship. One of the central values of citizenship in a pluralist society of the kind in which we live has to be mutual respect and toleration. These concerns with common identity, common values, mutual respect and toleration are not just theoretical issues, as we saw from the riots in northern cities last year.
No doubt those with a strong belief in the expansion of faith-based education will hold up what they sincerely regard as an ideal and practical picture of how faith-based education, far from undermining a sense of common identity, will in fact enhance it. I think that that was precisely the point that my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sheppard and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, were making. Those coming through to adult citizenship from faith-based schools will have a strong sense of their moral responsibility and identity through their membership of the faith community which has also been sustained by faith-based education. From this they will engage actively in common and civic tasks in society. On this view, there is no conflict between the recognition and, indeed, the funding of difference and the emergence and upholding of a sense of common identity. So, parental choice, religious identity and common values can all be held together.
If this ideal picture were to turn out to be the most likely one, I would have no practical qualms. However, I am worried that this may not be quite how things turn out. My worry is that faith-based education may not continue in the rather benign way that the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, experienced in Southport, because the fastest-growing areas of religion are of a fundamentalist and dogmatic kind. That is not just true of Islam, although we talk rather glibly so often of Islamic fundamentalism, but it is also true in the context of Christianity and, for all I know, of Judaism as well.
I have absolutely no objection to people holding their religious beliefs in a fundamentalist way. That is fine, but if faith schools that cater, or come to cater, for forms of fundamentalist forms of religion were to be established, there would be genuine concerns in respect of public policy and for a sense of common citizenship and common identity. The reason for that is simple: a fundamentalist regards it as unreasonable to disagree with his or her beliefs, "If I know the truth, why should I tolerate or respect dissent?". However, respect for others, toleration and a recognition that it is reasonable to disagree on such matters as religion are among the common values that are essential to a liberal democratic society marked by pluralism. They are essential features of the social cohesion about which the noble Lord, Lord Moser, talked. Yet fundamentalism does not recognise the reasonableness of disagreement between people over precisely those deep values of religious belief. So, although we must take into account parents' beliefs and choices, we cannot be indifferent to the potential consequences of such choices on the common values without which society cannot be sustained.
Indeed, it could be argued that faith communities, including those who hold their beliefs in a fundamentalist way—in the sense that I use the term—will receive state support if the Bill goes through, precisely in terms of the recognition of mutual tolerance and reasonable disagreement. After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said, perhaps the most persuasive argument for the
extension of faith schools to religious minorities would be on the basis of fairness and justice—the very ideas that are founded on a sense of mutual toleration and a recognition of reasonable disagreement. It would be odd, to say the least, to use such arguments in favour of the extension of religion-based schools if the ethos and teaching of some of those schools did not embody the very principles that have justified their own funding.Critics of the position that I outline would say that fundamentalism in schools can be constrained through Ofsted inspections and other measures. I doubt that. Although I am sure that Ofsted does an exceptionally good job in monitoring teaching standards and delivery, it is difficult to gauge a school's ethos on the basis of limited and infrequent inspection, partly because an ethos is not codified.
How might we respond to concerns about the possible use of faith schools by fundamentalists and those who wish to exclude people from other faiths? Constraints on the further development of faith schools are needed. That might be done through the proposals that my honourable friend Frank Dobson made in another place; I can see the difficulties of that approach. It might also be done by means of voluntary controlled schools, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, or through more informal procedures such as those that operate in Northern Ireland, which were mentioned by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard. If we are to go down that track, I should like to see the emergence of multi-faith schools rather than single-faith schools only.
It is important that schools play a full part in their community, that they should not be exclusionary bodies, and that we learn respect and mutual toleration through, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, living with people of different beliefs, not just learning theoretically about those beliefs. If we are to facilitate and endorse faith-based schools, we must at the same time examine ways to ensure that they are neither exclusionary nor fundamentalist in terms of excluding a sense of reasonable disagreement.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I am not alone in seeing the Bill as something of a curate's egg. Many noble Lords have welcomed its aspirations to reduce the lockstep of the middle school, to open secondary schooling to greater diversity, and, above all, to find ways to reach young people who are so disaffected that they disrupt others' education. In addition, many have welcomed the aspiration to better vocational education, and I ought to welcome all those aims. However, like many others, I query the means by which that is to be achieved, by taking so many extensive Henry VIII powers to the Secretary of State. In particular, I wish to focus on the degree to which the curriculum is legislated on in the Bill. That is prescribed at a time when consultation is being carried out on a Green Paper that raises the very questions the answers to which have been written into the Bill.
If the proposals in the Bill at present were to go through, they would impose considerable damage on a range of young people. In particular, they would damage that cohort of young people who may aspire to higher education, but for whom that is quite a stretch and a leap.
Noble Lords will not be surprised that the clauses to which I refer are those that specify the academic content for the curriculum at key stage 4. Clause 81 reduces the core subjects for that stage of education to mathematics, English and science. The study of a foreign language is to be made optional at age 14, with decisions to drop foreign languages to be made at age 13. Foreign languages are not the preserve of an academic elite. In this world, more people are bilingual or multilingual than are monolingual. Languages are, in the way and in the end, much more like vocational subjects than those that should be preserved for an academic elite.
One might argue that the Bill is neatly structured to make those worries irrelevant, because Clause 82 would allow the Secretary of State to waive or amend Clause 81; therefore, why should we worry about the proposal in Clause 81? Perhaps Clause 81, or better still, Clauses 81 and 82, need not stand part of the Bill at all. However, I speculate; that matter is for later.
I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the Nuffield Foundation, which funded an inquiry into languages in the UK. We did not fund that because we thought that everything was all right, but because the foundation believed that there were serious problems with language teaching in the UK. The inquiry identified those problems and made substantive proposals for their remedy. However, to be blunt, it did not occur to those who worked on the inquiry, or those who gave information to it, that a Government that were ostensibly committed to education, would take the view that the remedy to current problems with language teaching in the UK was to stop doing it, rather than do it better.
The foundation joined many others in urging government to set out a language strategy that links different stages of education and meets both employment and cultural needs. A language strategy of course needs to set out objectives, and at that the Green Paper is quite good and so is the Bill. But it also needs to set out stages for implementing those objectives and appropriate methods and provisions for teaching. Nobody imagines that the change can be instantaneous owing to the present lack of language teachers, the consequent lack and growing lack of university language entrants, the consequent cutting and closure of university language departments that is taking place, and the consequent reduced flow of language graduates into the schools. It will take political will to reverse that downward spiral. But I fear that when it comes to languages the Bill and the Green Paper have only a strategy of surrender rather than political will.
In thinking about the importance of creating a language strategy in what is admittedly a difficult situation, we might take some courage from the
example of France. France is a country that was not always known for excellent teaching of foreign languages. In fact, they were pretty bad at it, like ourselves. We know a lot more now, thanks in particular to the energetic involvement in our debates of the Ambassador of France, M. Bernard. It was only in 1989 that France set out its language strategy and made a commitment to teach all young people—I stress, "all" young people—two modern foreign languages. During the 1990s in France primary language teaching was introduced, and since 1998 study of two foreign languages has been compulsory for all. French children start one foreign language at the beginning of their primary education, when they are most receptive to this delightful skill, and another at the start of their secondary education. Yet we propose to make universal provision only for three years of learning one language. They order these things better in France!The Green Paper gestures towards the introduction of primary language learning, which deserves wholehearted support. But that is not to be universally introduced until 2012. In the meantime, after age 14, young children are to have only a language "entitlement", in the words of the Bill. Schools will be required to offer a foreign language to those who want it. Will a school have done enough if it provides for teaching only of one foreign language? Does that constitute the "entitlement"? Even more ominously the Green Paper suggests that 14 to 16 year-olds should have an entitlement to study what is called rather coyly, "a humanities subject". Will a school have done enough by teaching history but no English literature, or English literature but no history? Apparently these entitlements are the new way of referring to reduced opportunities and provision.
Pupil choice is an important principle in schooling. But we know that a good education, particularly in the middle school years, cannot be based solely on pupil choice. Many pupils would give up mathematics at age 14 if they were allowed to. But the Bill does not propose that it be allowed. Language learning too needs persistence across time. So much will still not be prescribed, but this reduction of middle school core requirements is to be resisted.
Allowing young people to give up foreign languages very early might be educationally timid, but perhaps it would not be immediately harmful to all young people, provided that they made a choice in their own best interests. But the incentives will be for young people to choose subjects in which Grade As and Grade A*s at GCSE are more easily earned, and the incentives for schools seeking to improve their position in the famous league tables will be the same. Able and well advised young people in good and ambitious schools will know that dropping out of language learning early will jeopardise their futures. However, equally able but less well advised young people in less secure schools may discover that too late.
If the proportion of each age group who go on to higher education is to grow, we need an Education Bill that pays attention to those pupils. An unintended consequence of this Bill would be that able young
people in less good schools will drop out of academically important subjects too young. That may later have serious consequences for their future. I do not think that it is likely that all universities will allow their matriculation requirements to drift downwards with the proposed weakening of the middle school curriculum. So able young people who ill-advisedly opt out of languages may later face formal as well as substantive obstacles when they seek to move on to higher education. Clause 81 of the Bill in particular—but the Green Paper in many paragraphs also—risks damaging able pupils in weaker schools by undermining their preparation for higher education. I believe it will jeopardise any plan to expand university intake.7.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is 15 years almost to the day since I first arrived in your Lordships' House. There is one problem I have never been able to solve; namely, when is it best to speak. It is a great honour to speak at the beginning but then one has nothing to look forward to. It is a great privilege to be the last speaker, as my noble friend Lord Hattersley will be. The trouble with that, of course, is that the only people who will be present are those who have taken part in the debate, all of whom are tired and bored and only there because the Companion says that, as a matter of courtesy, we have to be here for the wind-up. To speak in the middle one suffers the indignity of having one's friends come up and say, "I am terribly sorry I will not be there, but of course I shall read your speech in Hansard tomorrow".
I have three preliminary remarks to make, one addressed to the Opposition—again to my old friend the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who arrived at the same time as I did and with whom I have debated with great pleasure over a great many years. We can complain about secondary legislation and the powers of the Secretary of State, but there is no possibility that the official Opposition can because they are the ones who started all this. I sat exactly where the noble Baroness is currently sitting when we were dealing with the deregulation Bill. Curiously enough, I used exactly the phrase she did; I referred to it as a "constitutional outrage". I also added, for want of using a cliché, that one day we would be in power, that they would not be and that the chickens would come home to roost because we did not know before then that we could do that sort of thing.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page