---

Education: Science and Technology

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, and I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for introducing it. I very much enjoyed her opening speech. In fact, I think I understood most of it, too. My only commitment to cognitive-enhancing drugs is a daily dose of brain-enhancing fish oils. I particularly agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that children today learn in a way that is very different from the way in which we learned. My three year-old grandson seems to learn everything either by bouncing up and down or by standing on his head. He is learning a great deal, all the same, although I certainly would not want to copy him. I also share the enthusiasm of the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord Dearing, for PDAs. I am aware that there has been a very successful pilot scheme, which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, would certainly approve of, to provide PDAs to your Lordships. That will perhaps allow us to learn a little more about how children today learn effectively. In debating how children learn, it might be worth bearing in mind a sentence from the introduction to a book by a Member of your Lordships’ House, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who is not here today. The book is entitled Learning Works: Widening Participation in Further Education, in which she said:"““In a system so caught up with what is measurable, we can forget that learning is also about problem-solving, learning to learn, acquiring the capability for intelligent choice in exercising personal responsibility. It is a weapon against poverty. It is a route to participation and active citizenship””." I know that the Government understand this. They have done two things that chime very well with those sentiments. The first is their investment in early-years education—trying to eliminate poverty and inequality, identify problems and intervene at an early stage for children. The other is the introduction of citizenship as part of the core curriculum. However, there are other areas where I believe the Government have so far failed our children. I believe that the role of education is not to stuff young heads with facts, such as the date of the Battle of Hastings. It is to teach children how to think critically, to take responsibility as a citizen of all the worlds they live in—the local world and the global world, to make wise choices and to develop morally, emotionally, creatively and physically as well as intellectually. That is why it is so important to understand how children think and to help them to learn, which is a term I prefer to the word ““teach””, by the way, in a way that harmonises with the world in which they live and the ways in which they are used to taking in information—in other words, through electronic media—and in ways which they see as relevant to their needs and which they enjoy. I learnt when I was training as a teacher, and through my experience in the classroom, that children learn by seeing and doing rather than by listening and reading, which is why I am so keen on practical science lessons and field studies out in the real world. That gives science students the ““wow”” factor. It develops their curiosity, even if there are risks attached. On that I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath. The comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, on the way in which children use technology are particularly relevant to the present day. I see technology as a tool for learning and not as a subject in itself except for those who wish to make it their career. I am afraid that it was far too often seen in schools as an add-on instead of as an integral part of other curriculum subjects and a tool for learning them, which is why I welcome the work of the Futurelab. In considering this Unstarred Question I decided that the noble Baroness wanted to know how aware the Government were of research in education and what account they took of the findings. The Government are blessed with having a country that is stuffed full of universities staffed by highly able academics who are only too interested in providing high-quality research on matters relating to education and its organisation, management, statistics, subject matter, methodology, monitoring and assessment, economics, relevance, uptake, demographics—and I could go on, but I think that noble Lords get the picture. The Government have commissioned many pieces of valuable research, ostensibly with the objective of informing policy. I therefore decided to look at the Government’s track record on responding positively to the findings of that credible research. What I found was a record too often of buying a dog and barking yourself—of either failing to implement the measures that the researchers proposed or implementing them only in part in a way which undermines the greater benefits that might ensue. I refer in particular to the evidence on school admissions and selectivity; on child stress and teaching to the test; evidence gathered by Mike Tomlinson on the need to reform the 14-to-19 curriculum and assessment system; evidence on the negative effects of league tables; ASBOs; and the warnings from the most highly qualified professionals about the dangers of being too prescriptive from Whitehall about synthetic phonics and how professional teachers should teach literacy. Those are only a few of the examples that I could come up with. The effect on the morale of the teaching and lecturing workforce and this determined ignoring of the evidence in favour of the crude ““what works”” prejudices of the Prime Minister is a reservoir of pent-up fury and frustration, some of which was demonstrated by the debates at this Easter’s teaching union conferences. Let us look at just one of these pieces of research which has suffered from death by tabloid headline. The Tomlinson report on education for 14 to 19 year-olds was published in October last year to general acclaim. It proposed reforms of far-reaching significance that are very much needed. Yet, when the Secretary of State announced what she was going to do about it, she had clearly succumbed to screaming tabloid headlines about ditching the precious A-levels—the so-called gold standard. In fact, Mike Tomlinson proposed no such thing; rather, he suggested a gradual incorporation of the best aspects of A-levels into something more fit for purpose in our modern society. We certainly need to do something. We need a revolution of the kind referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, in her very inspirational speech. I am afraid that the reason for our poor participation in post-16 education is the poor school experience of many of our children. Many of the 47 per cent who fail to get their five A-C grade GCSEs are bored by the current 14-plus curriculum and demotivated from learning. GCSEs and A-levels are geared to the academic route. We have failed consistently to offer a coherent vocational route of equal standing and value. Then we wonder why we have a skills gap. What we need is a qualification system of national and international standing that attracts and serves the needs of the whole ability range. So what did Tomlinson propose and how did it link up with both the objectives I have just mentioned and how children think and learn? He realised that children and all of us are motivated by achieving something. When we do so we are motivated to do more—it cheers us up and boosts our confidence. But in this country we are fixated on failing people. We used to fail 80 per cent of children through the 11-plus, and now 47 per cent of children fail to get the required GCSE standards. Many children even fail to get into the school of their choice. Embracing failure seems integral to the national character. I hope that the Government will hear the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, and wake up to the fact that they cannot know everything themselves and listen to the research that they have commissioned. Of course the Government must respond to public opinion, but they must also lead public opinion. When they do so they should rely on good-quality research evidence about what works. Evidence-based policy is what we were promised by the Government, but over and over again we see that that is not what we get. From these Benches we have always commissioned research and gone into great detail about the cost and effectiveness of various policy options as well as the general principles of whether they will deliver a freer, more just and more equitable society. Perhaps the Government should keep the faith, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, urged, and listen to their DfES research department and do the same.