---

Education

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, for initiating this debate. For once in my life, instead of concentrating on what I wanted to say, I have been listening to the noble Baroness and all the other speakers with respect and have learnt a lot. I am sure that the Minister has been listening equally carefully. I want to concentrate my remarks on the October White Paper. As I read and re-read it, it seemed to be written by people with commitment, passion and vision. I have never doubted any government’s commitment to education. I have been particularly impressed that, since 1997, we have got an extra 40,000 teachers and the number of teaching assistants has doubled to 200,000. Putting people into schools is very impressive, much more so for me than the commitment to redo over the next 15 years all our secondary schools and half the primary schools. That is also impressive, but the point has been made that it is the people who make a school and make education, and that is where resources mainly must go. I have been impressed by the Government’s decision to make available £335 million by 2007–08 for teaching in small groups in secondary schools and particularly for catch-up classes in the first year for those who are behind. However, while there has been a commitment and resources have increasingly been made available, I see in the White Paper the concern and the admission that the difference between those born to succeed in education and those who start at a disadvantage has not been made good. As the White Paper says at section 1.24, the attainment gap for pupils has not narrowed. That is tragic. It is a scandal that, in spite of all our effort and commitment, those born to have least in life through education are the ones least likely to succeed. The figures are quoted: around 25 per cent of our kids leave primary school without the basic kit in literacy and numeracy to take advantage of their secondary education—what a disaster—and 85 per cent of those will end up without the magic five A to C grade GCSEs. Then you look at the figures for some sections of our community: working-class white boys, children whose parents are from Pakistan and Bangladesh, and black Caribbean boys, of whom only 17 per cent get five decent GCSEs. We must be concerned about that. I warmed to the White Paper because it shows concern about those people and a commitment to do something about it. I looked carefully through the proposals because I have one hobby horse: before a government introduce a policy, they should validate it, and the best way to do that is to pilot it. I counted that they have piloted, or are piloting, seven of their specific proposals relevant to improving performance. Although I find the proposals to deal with structure bold and the kind of thinking that we need to break the mould, I did not find evidence that they had been validated and tested. Those proposals include, for example, a new role for local authorities, which are to be commissioners, referees and parents’ champions rather than providers. It would comfort me if, before moving further on those proposals, the Government found some likeminded local authorities willing to pilot and test them against pre-stated criteria to see whether they deliver the goods. We have a code of good practice for admissions; I want a code of good practice for governments on validating change before making it. We are talking about the future of kids where for decades we have not solved their problems. Before making changes we must ensure that they will work for those kids. I have a personal belief, shared, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that great teachers will do the trick but they need freedoms. I notice that on trust schools, which I am glad to see are being piloted, there is a proposal that, with the Secretary of State’s consent, they may get extra-curricular freedoms. That is good because I am not sure that lads and lasses whose parents have perhaps come from a village in Pakistan or Bangladesh will be inspired by learning about how the Romans came and then the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings and the Normans. However, they might be inspired by looking at the history of the Olympic movement, since it is coming to this country, and its standards and aspirations, which they can see as part of their lives. If there is the prospect, on application to the Secretary of State, of extra-curricular freedoms for trust schools, why not for all schools where they are needed and will help teachers to deliver? I particularly welcome the improvement partner—I have forgotten the exact term but every school is to have one. They are needed most in the schools with the greatest problems. If I could, I would give every one of them a Marie Stubbs. I do not whether all noble Lords know Dame Marie Stubbs; she is a very remarkable person who turns schools round. We need people like her. The Government rightly talk of their determination to deal with underperformance by schools. The Audit Commission, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred, makes the case that we cannot allow children to be disadvantaged by bad schools. I have said it before and I will say it again to the noble Baroness: I am with you. However, I am not so keen on deciding that closure is the best answer. I do not think that the Government are saying that either but I have had experience of closing an underperforming school and going through what is involved in re-opening. It absorbed so much of the senior staff’s energy and the governing body was overwhelmed by it. Meanwhile, the school was plodding on, almost waiting. The best approach would be to put in the back-up resources an, if need be, change the head teacher and senior staff to turn the place round. That is where the action takes place, rather than through procedures. I am concerned that areas of deprivation should continue to have their school as a centre of regeneration and renewal for the community rather than it being shut down, with the risk of that community going on the bus—on pre-paid fares—to a school in a middle class area. I want them to have a good education, but it is much better to create community commitment to the school and education. The right reverend Prelate referred to the Church’s attitude. He picked in particular the possibility of inter-faith or joint-faith schools. I welcome that, and perhaps trust that schools are a way forward for developing that possibility. That would make them not faith schools but schools where people of faith come together, including at the heart of the governing body. That is something new for the Churches and faith groups to develop. I have spoken about the curriculum, teachers and new buildings. On admissions, I like the boldness of the Government’s thinking on local authorities but am not clear how it is going to work, particularly with admissions. I worry that the middle classes will work the system rather than parents who have themselves failed in education. I know the Government have in mind that parents should have support from the local authorities; I have one suggestion that may help them, in the context of the school profile, which is part of the innovation. I was engaged in writing a report for the government back in 1993, in which I advocated the argument that schools were there to add value, and that the best measure of performance was value added. It would be helpful to the parents of kids who do not look like doing well if their school profiles could declare for, say, children who had not achieved level 1 in key stage 1, how they had improved in performance by the end of key stage 2, and similarly, for a secondary school, for those who have come in with, say, level 2 or less in English and maths, how they had done by the end of key stage 3. Parents could then look not at who is top of the GCSE league, but at which schools are good at caring for and helping kids like theirs. The main point for the Minister is yes, be bold, but test the ground first. You have the futures of our kids in your hands.