| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Fundamentally, they would change the settlement that has been in place since 1944 regarding the provision of religious education to children and young people and the right of withdrawal that may be exercised by parents. I know that the noble Baroness is aware of that, but it is not something that the Government can support right now. The amendments also introduce new arrangements for the withdrawal of pupils from collective worship.
The Government recognise the value of collective worship in schools because it contributes to young people’s spiritual, social, moral and cultural development by exploring social and moral issues and their own beliefs. Collective worship is a long-standing aspect of school life, and many parents want their children to benefit from it, whether or not they have a strong Christian belief themselves. The current position in the case of maintained community, foundation, voluntary and special schools is that all pupils must receive RE unless withdrawn by their parents, as the noble Baroness is aware. All pupils should attend collective worship unless withdrawn by their parents up to the age of 16 or they withdraw themselves in the sixth form.
Clause 129 replicates these provisions for pupils at non-maintained special schools so that all maintained schools and non-maintained special schools would be placed on the same footing. The Government judge that there is no good reason for children in non-maintained and maintained special schools to have different rights in relation to collective worship.
These amendments reproduce similar ones debated in Committee. Indeed, the noble Baroness reminded us of a debate, which noble Lords may remember, during the passage of the Education and Inspections Act in 2006. At that time, the Government agreed with the noble Baroness that there was a case for extending the right of withdrawal from collective worship to children over compulsory school age, and we duly brought forward amendments to the Bill. Noble Lords on both sides of the Committee recognised the difficulties that would result from the amendments currently before us, and my noble friend Lord Adonis made it clear that the intention behind them was a step too far. Over the Summer Recess, the Government’s position has not changed. We believe that the balance has been struck in the right place by allowing sixth form pupils to withdraw themselves from collective worship.
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1816
As noble Lords may recognise, religious education is a distinctly different issue that relates to the content of the schools’ curriculum. A non-statutory national framework for religious education now seeks to ensure that children gain a broad and balanced understanding of religion. More local standing advisory councils on religious education are now adopting syllabuses based on that framework. We welcome that development and see no case for changing the law at present to provide children with an opt-out from religious education.
Baroness Walmsley: Yet again, my Lords, I see that I have not convinced the Minister. Perhaps I could tentatively mention that I regard this issue as another PSHE. Not so long ago, the Government rejected our amendments on PSHE with the same fervour as the noble Baroness and her predecessor have rejected these amendments, whose day will come.
This Government have moved a long way towards giving children their human rights. Clearly, for the moment, they will not go as far as giving them this particular right, but I have every confidence that they will see the light one day—as I hope they also will on reasonable chastisement, and the child’s right to have equal protection under the law from assault as adults do. However, it is quite clear that the Government will not move on this, so I shall not waste any more of your Lordships’ time. I shall withdraw the amendment, but we will come back to this on every appropriate Bill in future.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 193 to 195 not moved.]
Clause 130 [Protection of pupils in an emergency]:
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin moved Amendment No. 196:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin moved Amendments Nos. 197 to 202:
200: Clause 131, page 73, line 3, leave out from “to” to “, and” in line 4 and insert “the First-tier Tribunal”
202: Clause 131, page 73, line 19, leave out from “to” to “, and” in line 20 insert “the First-tier Tribunal”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 133 [Approval of independent schools: consequential amendments]:
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin moved Amendments Nos. 203 and 204:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 136 [Sixth form admissions etc]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 205:
205: Clause 136, page 78, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) For the purpose of this section and section 86A, the expression of a preference for a school includes a particular course of study provided by the school.””
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment to find out whether the Government are aware that the current law on post-16 admissions in schools needs to be updated to take account of the current and future patterns of provision and young people’s choices. Young people currently have a statutory right to state a preference for the school or college of their post-16 education. However, today they do not really distinguish between educational provision made by a school or college. They decide what they want to do, then look around for institutions providing the right courses. The law has not completely caught up with that fact.
Most schools set out to admit external candidates to their sixth forms. They advertise information meetings and have application forms to complete. Schools welcome those external applicants, although admission numbers are rarely set for new entrants unless the school is designated to provide sixth-form education for young people from a number of schools. Schools set relatively low admission requirements for academic achievement, but they must of course be the same for both internal and external candidates. That is because schools now provide a wide range of courses for all abilities, some being more popular than others.
However, schools operate course oversubscription criteria. The first criterion, for those who can get onto courses, is often to admit internal applicants first. That is not generally published. Thus, a school may be prepared to give external candidates three out of their four A-level choices, and thus offer them a place, but not to give them their fourth—on the basis that all the places available have been filled by internal candidates. A place is often offered on a less popular A-level course to fill it up. However, it may have been that fourth course that the young person particularly wanted, but there is no appeal to the schools’ adjudicator, as there is no refusal to admit the student. In other words, it is relatively easy to be offered a school place, thus ruling out the chance of appealing against refusal to admit the applicant, who therefore has no rights of appeal despite not being admitted onto the course that he or she wants. Indeed the only recourse for a young person in these circumstances would be to accept the place, complain to the governors and then, if the governors do not yield, go to the Secretary of State to intervene on the grounds that the governors’ refusal has been unreasonable to meet the person’s curricular needs.
This goes to show that as the country moves, with the development of diplomas, towards a de facto tertiary post-16 system where a majority of young people at 16 access part of their option courses at different institutions, the law on post-16 school admissions
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1818
An anomaly has crept in here and, as we move to a post-16 education system where we are expecting young people perhaps to opt for courses and be at one institution or another institution, there is inequality. As I say, if they change institutions and opt for courses that are already filled with internal candidates, they are put on the bottom of the list and cannot get on to the courses they require. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Verma: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness’s arguments, which would give sixth formers a greater choice, not only in the preference they express for schools but also with regard to what course they take when they get there. Ideally schools would provide all possible options so that no one would be disappointed. However, we do not have an ideal system but one where budgets, staffing availability, pupil numbers and much else besides influence what courses of study schools can provide for their pupils. We should be wary of placing on statute an aspiration that is best met by allowing schools the flexibility to offer their pupils the courses of study which are available according to their individual circumstances.
Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about making maximum real choice available but I do not believe that this is the vehicle with which to achieve it. We are dealing with admissions and I shall go on to develop why.
As regards Amendment No. 205, we are placing a duty on young people in England to participate in education or training until the age of 18. The duty to do so will be on the young people rather than their parents; therefore it is only right that young people are able to decide for themselves at which school they wish to continue their education. The purpose of Clause 136 is to give young people in England and Wales the same rights as their parents to apply for a place at a particular school of their choice, and Clause 138 gives them a right to appeal against a decision to refuse them admission.
The amendment seeks to extend the rights of those stating a preference for a school to include an additional right to specify a particular course of study. This right would apply only in the context of sixth-form education. An effect of the amendment would be to place a duty on admission authorities—which, in many cases, would be the local education authority—to ensure that a particular course of study was available to a particular young person. That should not be the job of the admission authority but
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1819
In addition, where a sixth form does not offer a particular course of study, a young person will be entitled to state a preference for a place in another sixth form where the course of study is available. I am sure that many of us, as parents, have been through the process of helping our children to find the right sixth form college or school. As noble Lords will be aware, the next Education and Skills Bill will propose transferring the funding and responsibility for commissioning 16 to 19 provision from the Learning and Skills Council to local authorities from 2010. As part of this duty, local authorities will be responsible for ensuring that there is sufficient provision available to meet the needs of all learners in their area. That is where we are directing, with due respect, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
It will be a duty of the local authority to ensure that there is, from 2010, sufficient provision available to meet the needs of all learners in their area. We will be stressing the importance of ensuring a diversity of provision so that it includes access to a range of provision that will genuinely increase learner choice. This and other changes that we are making to the range of post-16 options will ensure that all young people can access a course of learning that is appropriate and relevant. I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, in relation to this. We should be wary of giving them an almost impossible task of trying to ensure, through the process of admissions, that every course of study that any particular student might wish for will be available at every school or college. I hope that the assurances I have given on the duty of local authorities—to ensure a diverse range of provision from 2010—show that we are cognisant of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. On those grounds, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. The purpose of this amendment was really to bring to the department’s attention the fact that there is a degree of inequality here that is a problem. Clearly, if some students have to change school at 16 and others can stay within the same institution, it should not necessarily be the inherent right of those staying within the institution to fill up all the popular courses. It may be that a student chooses a particular institution because it is well known that it teaches a particular subject. We have all these specialist colleges and schools now; some are much better at teaching some subjects than others and have a very good reputation. As this Bill is implemented and we have more young people staying on in school wanting to opt for particular courses, this could be a bigger issue. It is important that the department should think about this issue and how best to meet it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 140 [Power of governing body: educational provision for improving behaviour]:
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1820
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin moved Amendment No. 206:
206: Clause 140, page 92, line 23, at end insert—
“( ) prohibiting a governing body from exercising the power conferred by subsection (1) in such a way that any pupil is required to receive educational provision outside the school premises for a greater number of days in a school year than is specified in the regulations,”
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move on to government Amendments Nos. 206 and 207. Clause 140 provides a specific power for governing bodies to require registered pupils to attend a place off-site in order to receive educational provision that is intended to improve their behaviour. A school governing body already has the power, under Section 29(3) of the Education Act 2002, to direct pupils off-site to receive instructional training. The power was intended to enable schools to send pupils to other schools or FE colleges to take academic or vocational subjects that their own school could not provide. However, there are concerns that governing bodies may also be exercising this power for a number of purposes that go beyond those stated in the Act, albeit that they are used to benefit the pupil concerned. This amendment seeks to allow regulations to be made concerning the maximum length of time that a pupil can be referred off-site for education relating to their behaviour. It has always been our intention that referrals to off-site provision to improve pupils’ behaviour should be only for a temporary period.
In response to a concern expressed earlier in the process by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we will reinforce this by having regulations stating that governing bodies cannot direct a pupil off-site beyond the end of the academic year in which they are so directed. Along with the statutory review that must take place when a pupil is off-site, we can be confident that students will not be pushed out of mainstream education on the back of this clause. In addition, Clause 140 allows regulations to be made requiring a governing body exercising the power to require a pupil to attend off-site provision to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. It is the intention to issue guidance on the use of the power and, indeed, illustrate guidance that has already been issued in draft, to show how it is intended that the power should operate.
The Government are committed to transforming the quality of alternative education provision and, as part of this, to raising the standards of education for pupil referral units. We published our White Paper, Back on Track, in May, setting out our proposals for achieving this. Central to our strategy is a focus on early intervention to prevent behavioural problems leading to permanent exclusions and on stronger accountability by holding local authorities to account for the outcomes of young people in pupil referral units, which I hope noble Lords will agree is extremely important. We are determined to improve this sector, which is so crucial to the life chances of some of the more disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I intend to say little more than, “Thank you very much”. However, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has expressed
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1821
Baroness Verma: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Morris voiced some concern regarding the original provision. I would not want headmasters’ ability to impose discipline in their own schools to be taken away by this approach, so I should like to read carefully what the Minister said.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I hear the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We do not want a loophole which would detract from the intention of this amendment. I will get proper advice and write to her before Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin moved Amendment No. 207:
207: Clause 140, page 92, line 25, leave out “any such requirement” and insert “a requirement under subsection (1)”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin moved Amendment No. 208:
208: After Clause 141, insert the following new Clause—
“National Curriculum for England: duty to implement assessment arrangements
(1) In section 88 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) (implementation of the National Curriculum for England in schools), in the existing provision (which becomes subsection (1)), at the end insert—
“This subsection does not apply in relation to assessment arrangements.”
(2) After that subsection insert—
“(1A) In relation to any maintained school—
(a) the local education authority and the governing body must exercise their functions with a view to securing, and
(b) the head teacher must secure,
that the assessment arrangements specified for the time being in the National Curriculum for England are implemented.””
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments in this group make a small legislative change, although they may cause a few larger ripples. I set out the rationale for these changes in a letter to noble Lords on 23 October. They amend Section 88 of the Education
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1822
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |