| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 108:
- After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall not rehearse the arguments that we considered at length in Committee, except to say that I still regard this as an important amendment. It is important that we protect sixth forms.
During the passage of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, concern was expressed about the future vulnerability of sixth forms. We were given assurances at the time that there was nothing to worry about. When the learning and skills councils—unelected, appointed bodies—were set up, it was again feared that sixth forms would be vulnerable. We now know that to be the case. There is huge concern about funding. I do not know who is to respond to this
There are also staffing benefits. Not everybody believes that sixth forms are a good idea. Many believe that tertiary education for 16-plus children is the way forward, and, for a long time, it was Labour Party policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, who was a partner of mine in local government in East Anglia, made no secret of the fact that Labour Party policy was that tertiary education was preferable.
I shall talk about staffing policy. We know that schools that have sixth forms attract staff and that staff looking for teaching posts are often attracted to schools that offer the opportunity to teach children aged from 11 to 18 who will go on to college and university. There is an educational point involved.
My third concern relates to rural schools. Rural schools feel even more vulnerable than many urban schools. Choices in an urban area are much greater. In rural areas, there is the logistical problem of travelling from one school to another, and it is not easy to link up all rural secondary schools with the nearest tertiary college or sixth-form college. The position of rural schools is important.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said:
From talking to people in the local skills councils we know that there is a preference for rational post-16 provision. It is felt that if all post-16 pupils were in tertiary education it would be an administratively tidy solution. The Minister continued that proposals would be published only where there was clear, objective evidence for local need. He said that proposals would be based on a clear assessment of the overall need in an area. He then gave the game away by using the phrase:
There is the rub. We know that the Learning and Skills Council is minded to take the view that it would be better for an area as a whole to have all the sixth formers at either the local technical college, further education college, tertiary college or sixth form
If the Minister meant what he said the last time we met in Committee, that schools need not be worried and that there are reassurances, it is important that my amendment is accepted. It says that,
The second proposed subsection in my amendment proposes the safeguard that, the first subsection,
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and to speak to the other amendments in the group that are in my name. We support the amendment because we are worried by what the Learning and Skills Council is doing. When we passed the Learning and Skills Act 2000 we made it clear that we wanted small sixth forms to remain. We passed a clause in the Act which ensured that sixth forms retained spending in real terms at the level they had been receiving it.
That has been important and I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the number of sixth forms that are unhappy with the degree to which the Learning and Skills Council has been throwing its weight around. Noises have been forthcoming in a number of areas which indicate that the council has clear ideas about what it wants to do: sixth form colleges work well, so why don't we have more?
We firmly believe in diversity of provision at the 16 to 19 level. It is horses for courses. Some young people want to get away from school. They want to go to a college where they have a greater degree of freedom. My daughter was one: she benefited enormously from moving out of the school sixth form and taking her A-levels at what was then the local technical college. She enjoyed the freedom and was a well-motivated student; she went on to Cambridge.
Other students do not want to move away and want to be in the more sheltered environment of the sixth form. That may be particularly true of some of the smaller schools. Many schools in rural areas have small sixth forms. We feel the beady eyes of the Learning and Skills Council on some of those schools asking why the pupils cannot attend the further education college in the large local town.
The answer is that it is a leap to some of those children. It often involves a lengthy journey which they may not want to undertake. They may be happy in the environment they know. Sixth form colleges can differ from further education colleges, which often have 10,000 students. Sixth form colleges often have around 1,500 to 2,000 students. Some students benefit greatly from the different environment.
We feel strongly that the current diversity on offer is a strength of our 16 to 19 system. It enables individuals to be suited to the environment they like best. It would be a shame if we were to close some of the smaller sixth forms, which have relatively higher costs than larger sixth forms. The Learning and Skills Council's remit is to make the most efficient use of its resources. Undoubtedly it compares those costs and recognises that it costs as much as £1,000 more per student to keep students in a small sixth form than for them to take their post-16 courses at the local further education college. But that diversity is vitally important. We want a clear assurance from the Minister that the Learning and Skills Council will not close down small sixth forms just because they cost more money and because it believes larger colleges will be more efficient.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 110 to 112. The first more substantive amendment was tabled in Committee. It relates to local accountability on sixth forms. It asks that proposals for changes go before the local school organisation committee and that consultation takes place. It provides an opportunity for assurances that the Learning and Skills Council will operate within local consultative frameworks.
In Committee the Minister replied that,
The final two amendments change "may" to "shall" and are the only two tabled on Report. Clause 68(8) states:
"MAINTENANCE, EXPANSION AND FUNDING OF SCHOOL SIXTH-FORMS
After section 113 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) (inadequate sixth-forms) there is inserted—
"113A MAINTENANCE, EXPANSION AND FUNDING OF SCHOOL SIXTH-FORMS
(1) Where the Learning and Skills Council for England proposes a change in sixth-form provision, there shall be a presumption that a school sixth-form will not be closed where the governing body of the school proposes that it should continue and believes that it contributes to the success of the school as a whole.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if an inspection has shown that education for those above compulsory school age is of an unacceptable standard.
(3) A maintained school which provides education for pupils above compulsory school age but below the age of nineteen may submit proposals to the relevant authority to increase the number of sixth-form places, and the relevant authority shall provide funding for those places at the same rate per capita as for the existing places, provided that the schools can demonstrate sufficient demand for those places.""
"The Bill, together with the regulations and guidance for which it provides, will have the effect of ensuring that the LSC proposes changes to the pattern of sixth form education only where there is real evidence of local need and only where change would clearly benefit the young people in the area".
He went on to say:
"That is why the LSC will be able to make proposals only under clear conditions. Therefore, I want to dispel the anxieties of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the LSC may be conducting its affairs in some position of prejudice against small sixth forms".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 1031.]
"by linking the possibility of closure simply to the views of the sixth form concerned regardless of the wider local needs".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 1032.]
"Where the Learning and Skills Council for England proposes a change in sixth-form provision, there shall be a presumption"—
—no more than that—
"that a school sixth-form will not be closed where the governing body of the school proposes that it should continue and believes that it contributes to the success of the school as a whole".
That does not prevent proposals coming forward, but they would be tested against the case made by the school recognising that presumption.
"shall not apply if an inspection has shown that education for those above compulsory school age is of an unacceptable standard".
The third proposed subsection states that,
"A maintained school which provides education for pupils above compulsory school age but below the age of nineteen may submit proposals to the relevant authority to increase the number of sixth-form places"—
—that is sometimes the salvation of many sixth forms in rural areas—
"and the relevant authority shall provide funding for those places at the same rate per capita as for the existing places"—
—no more, no less. They shall be treated fairly, and on all fours with the existing places. The schools will have to demonstrate sufficient demand for the extra places. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
"The consultation paper on 16 to 19 organisation and inspection that we published in the autumn made it clear that we envisaged that school organisation committees and LEAs, school and college interests must be fully consulted".
He went on to reiterate the fact that there would be consultation, stating:
"We wish to ensure that the process for local proposals takes account of the views of the full range of young people and parents who might be affected by the changes in their local area".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 1033.]
That being the case, I put forward the argument that I made in Committee: if you agree with us, why not put it on the face of the Bill? It would be good to see it in
the Bill because it would reassure local authorities that it is not a case of the Learning and Skills Council coming in and throwing its weight around, but that it will listen to local people and organisations. The Minister said in Committee that it should be doing that. If that is the case, why not place that on the face of the Bill?
"Regulations may make provision about proposals under this section and may in particular make provision about . . . information to be included in or provided in relation to the proposals".
If the Learning and Skills Council makes far-reaching proposals on restructuring sixth-forms—the new section is headed "Restructuring of sixth-form education"—it is vitally important that information, consultation and so forth are made clear. I should like to see written on the face of the Bill a provision relating to information, but if that cannot be the case, let us at least have it clear in the regulations. Regulations must be made because we need them in these circumstances.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page