| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Before the Committee concludes its debate on this amendment and issue—as
the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, we have rehearsed some of the arguments already—I should like to share an experience from my early days as a local councillor in Liverpool, 30 years ago, when I became the governor of a local comprehensive school which had been built for 2,000 children. It had been built in an area where mass demolition was taking place. The numbers in that school had fallen to about 300 or 400 pupils. Huge efforts were made, not least by the local authority which spent vast sums of money on the school. At one point it was suggested that it would have been cheaper to provide places at Eton for every child at the school than to run the school with those numbers of pupils. However, it drew from an area that was incredibly socially deprived. That council ward which I represented had some of the worst social indicators in England. Half the houses had no inside sanitation, running hot water or bathrooms. That school was more like one of the old secondary modern schools that both the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and I wholly oppose.I lived on a council estate and my father worked on the shop floor at Ford but, like others who addressed the Committee earlier this evening, I attended a grammar school. I am aware of the opportunity that that afforded me. I share that experience with the noble Baroness and others who have spoken. My support, as it were, for comprehensive schools is predicated on those experiences. However, I do not support comprehensive schools where they are simply a replica of old secondary modern schools. There is no doubt that where a school's catchment area excludes children from other social backgrounds due to its location, it is in danger of becoming that kind of school.
To complete the story, the school I mentioned was closed down by the local education authority. That is relevant to other debates that we have had here because, ultimately, the Church of England took over the school and turned it into a non-selective girls' school. It is extraordinarily successful and, indeed, has introduced some of the most advanced technology facilities in the city. In a sense that story illustrates what the Government are trying to achieve through diversity.
The other part of the story is that, quite close by, it is planned to situate the new academy in Liverpool which was mentioned earlier. That is to be based in an area that I represented in another place for many years. That has resulted primarily from the initiative of the Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, who has been a powerhouse of energy in trying to make that happen. I can see that that will have a radically improving effect on the possibilities for children in inner-city Liverpool. We have so-called comprehensive schools in the heart of that city that have virtually never produced anyone who has gone on to higher education. We delude ourselves when we say that those schools are achieving the same objectives as comprehensive schools that are situated in suburban parts of the same city which do an incredibly good job and whose pupils are admitted to the LSE and elsewhere, as we would all wish to see.
I believe that the Government have the matter right. The words "all" or "different" in the amendment go to the heart of the problem. Diversity is surely the issue. As my noble friend Lord Northbourne said, we must provide for the individual needs of every child. I believe that we are agreed not that every child is the same but that what is required is equality of opportunity.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: Had those children been sent to Eton, they would have found familiar conditions; that is, no inside toilets and heating on just three days a week. It would have been just like home for them. I am sure that they would have done well there.
I shall be fascinated to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has to say about banding and whether the Government are for or against it. It may interest the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to know that the place where it is becoming most popular at the moment is Camden. Clearly, being socialist is not necessarily an antidote to banding.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When we opposed banding in Haringey, it was being proposed by the Labour Inner London Education Authority. So, there is no accounting for taste.
I hope that the Committee will allow me to talk about the amendments and not about the theory of comprehensive schools. My noble friend Lady Ashton dealt with that matter this afternoon and last week. Her and my commitment to comprehensive education is not to be doubted. However, that issue is not raised by the amendments we are discussing. I want to talk about the amendments.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, with regard to what "different" might mean. Although he did not say so, he could be questioning whether it could allow an academy to admit only category 1—the very bright—and category 2—the bright. They would be of different abilities and would certainly not be comprehensive. I make it absolutely clear that that would not be allowed.
The Government wish that each academy should cater for pupils with very different abilities; that is what the Bill provides. I know that Members of the Committee are keen—the Government are certainly keen—that academies should also cater for pupils from their local communities. The rules for admissions to academies—I said this in response to an earlier amendment—are consistent with those for maintained schools. I use the word "consistent" because they are based on funding agreements rather than other legislation.
I shall now descend into semantics. Where fewer pupils apply than there are places, the academy must admit all of them. I cannot imagine a situation in which those pupils would not be representative of "different" abilities. But they may not be representative of "all" abilities nationally. In an ideal world, all abilities nationally would be represented
locally. But in the real world, we know that we have geographic segregation. It may well be that pupils of all abilities do not apply to the academy, so the test set by the amendment could not and would not be met.Stephen Timms, the Minister for School Standards, said that he wanted academies to serve the needs of children of all abilities. That is indeed our aim and our aspiration, but it is not something that we can guarantee, as the amendment would require. Let us imagine a situation in which the academy is oversubscribed and cannot take all those who would like a place. The academy will have clear oversubscription criteria to determine who should be admitted in such cases. Those criteria will be clear, fair and transparent. They will be published locally for all to see and will be contained in the academy's funding agreement and approved by the Secretary of State.
A common oversubscription criterion is based on distance from the school—those who live nearest have the best chance of securing a place. I believe that most people agree with that; it ensures that schools serve their local community. But let us combine that criterion with a requirement to admit pupils of all abilities. What happens if the pupils who live nearest the school do not represent all abilities? Should some of them be denied places so that the school admits pupils of all abilities?
There is a further problem. There are many things that the Government can require of academies. We have made it clear that they must be inclusive schools and that they must follow the rules that all maintained schools must follow in terms of who is admitted. But the Government cannot require that they admit pupils of all abilities because we cannot require that pupils of all abilities apply to the academies.
Perhaps I should apologise; it may be thought that that is a semantic argument. However, it applies not only to academies but also to all maintained schools. It is not introduced by the idea of academies. I know how my noble friend Lord Peston feels about academies; he has made his views very clear. However, what is proposed in this regard is not an admissions policy that somehow departs from the comprehensive system any more than the admission policy for maintained schools might be thought to do so.
I turn to Amendment No. 236. We of course agree that academies should serve their community. We have put in place stringent requirements to ensure that that will happen. Academies will be bound through their funding agreements to conform to the requirements of the law on admissions and the statutory codes of practice as those apply to maintained schools.
However, the problem with the amendment is the one that I set out when I responded to Amendment No. 237, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Local communities do not follow neat LEA boundaries. The 1989 Greenwich judgment established that LEA maintained schools were not allowed to give priority to children simply because they lived in that LEA's administrative area. The Government's policy—I believe that this view will be
generally held—is that academies should, so far as admissions are concerned, be treated in the same way as maintained schools.I have not raised issues of profound principle about comprehensive education because I do not believe that they are raised by the amendment. However, I hope that I have answered the specific concerns that are raised by them.
Lord Peston: I suppose that when the proposed reforms are implemented and we rise at 10 p.m. the House will operate more efficiently. I must admit that I could not understand a word that the Minister just said. It may be old age or the lateness of the hour, although it is not that late.
If I were asked to describe a comprehensive school, I would have no difficulty defining it as an all-ability school, not a different ability school. I am at a loss to understand why the department decided that "different" is right and "all" is wrong. The only explanation is that the schools are not going to be comprehensives.
I am even more mystified by my noble friend's unwillingness to use "and". I had no idea that "and" had anything to do with the Greenwich judgment. I just thought that it would clarify the purpose of that part of the clause. My noble friend might like to reflect on the answer that the officials have written for him, which he read out admirably, and reconsider whether adding "and" would have an effect on one of the most fundamental parts of education. It beats me completely but at twenty past 10 o'clock, at my age, it is all a bit much for me. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page