Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Knight of Weymouth (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 24 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Education and Inspections Bill.


Education and Inspections Bill

Foundation schools, including those with trusts, are already proven. They have effectively been piloted already, and we had that debate last night, as I recall. I turn to the amendments on selection, as I imagine that that is why most hon. Members are present for this debate. The Government do not support the extension of selection by ability. I do not like selection. That has been our stance since 1997 and clause 36 reaffirms our stance that selection by academic ability cannot lawfully be introduced. But the Bill is not about imposing our view on structures centrally. It is an enabling Bill, and we want to encourage schools of all kinds to work together to benefit all pupils. Clause 48 on pupil banding is an example of how we are enabling schools to adopt such arrangements, which will widen access and provide an intake that is more representative of the range of ability of all applicants. Banding is not about selection. In fact, children cannot pass or fail a banding test. What happens is that children are allocated to ability bands and places are allocated from each of those in a non-selective way to produce a comprehensive intake. Although some banding schools run tests to assess ability and allocate to bands, it is not absolutely necessary to run separate tests for that. In Lewisham, where all schools band, the results of QCA year 5 SATS tests are used to allocate children to appropriate bands, so no additional testing is required. We will advocate the use of that means of assessing ability in the code. Amendment No. 110 seeks to prevent the introduction of banding by removing clause 48. I believe that pupil banding arrangements have a key role in reducing social segregation in an area. The new flexibilities on banding are important because they will allow schools situated in areas of traditional high academic attainment to send out a positive message that they are also there to serve less able pupils who might not gain entry if the school banded simply to admit local residents. That, coupled with our reforms of pupil transport, will increase opportunities for less affluent children, and I encourage anyone who wants to see a more equitable admissions system to support clause 48 and oppose amendment No. 110. Amendments Nos. 119 to 122 would go further and remove all selection by ability, including banding. New clause 39 would discontinue all selection except for banding purposes from all schools, unless local parents have voted in favour of its retention. In 1997, the Government made a commitment to leave it to parents and governors to decide the future of their grammar schools. The spirit of this Bill honours that commitment, as it does not impose any structure on any school. Grammar school governing bodies can bring forward proposals to remove selective arrangements, and the appropriate mechanisms are already in place to enable parents to challenge the continuation of selection in their local schools.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
446 c1568-9 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Access Children Codes of practice Children in care Admissions Applications Ballots Administration Closures Cooperation Education Governing bodies Grammar schools Foundation schools Interviews Parents Local education authorities Membership Pupils Travel Standards Schools Special educational needs Secondary education Trust schools
Legislation
Education and Inspections Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk