Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 6 June 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate on State Schools (Independence).


State Schools (Independence)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pope. It might surprise some hon. Members to hear that I was the keynote speaker at the Independent Schools Bursars Association conference about three weeks ago. It was an enjoyable event, and I was pleased to receive the invitation. I met a lot of independent schools’ bursars and got an invitation to visit Eton, which I might take up once I have visited all the schools in my constituency. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) on securing the debate, which is very timely, given the stage that we have reached in the education debate nationally. In the spirit of our proceedings, let me start by agreeing with him on various points. The Liberal Democrats certainly agree that there are problems and that far too many schools are failing or coasting. We wholeheartedly agree that we need to encourage innovation and local leadership, free from central Government diktat, which still casts a shadow over the education system. We also agree that we have an over-prescriptive centralised national curriculum, with far too much nationally imposed testing. Furthermore, I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that the dogmatic obsession with the question whether public or private is best is damaging, and there is clearly a role for the public, private and voluntary sectors in our public services. I would probably also agree with the hon. Member for Harwich and the Conservative party that the trust schools proposed in the Education and Inspections Bill will not deliver the vision that he outlined. Indeed, they have become something of a fudge—they are neither one thing nor the other. So, despite the Conservative party’s support for the Bill, I am sure he would acknowledge that it will not implement what he advocates. That Bill is certainly a long way from the original vision outlined by the Prime Minister, who said that he wanted all schools to become trust schools. I fundamentally disagree with that approach, which is a strange and over-prescriptive way of running our education system. It reminds me of Henry Ford, because it is a bit like saying, ““You can choose any school you want as long as it’s a trust school.”” That is not parental choice, which is the one thing we all agree that we want, although we have different ways of achieving it. I shall follow the development of Conservative party education policy with interest, because having supported the Bill, Conservative Members are likely to be quite critical of trust schools when they do little to improve standards over the coming years. However, we shall wait and see. As regards the Liberal Democrat vision, we agree with more freedom, localism and choice—those the buzz words that we all use, although we have different ways of implementing our policies. However, the one freedom that schools need above all is the one that the Bill does not give them—the freedom to teach what they want. We made that clear throughout proceedings on the Bill, although we shall not, of course, go through those debates again. The one freedom that the Bill gives schools with which we disagree is the freedom to pick pupils. A Headspace survey of head teachers showed that 38 per cent. admitted breaking their own admissions code. I accept that my party has a different vision of education, but our concern is that giving schools more independence will allow them to pick their own pupils. My party does not agree with that approach, although other hon. Members might, and that is a perfectly reasonable perspective. However, the evidence is that such things are happening, and they will become more likely to happen the more we go down the route of having independent schools. That will be to the detriment of the pupils whom our education system currently fails most. My hon. Friends and I are also concerned about accountability, which is another reason why we do not want to go down the route of introducing further independence for schools. The hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned localism, and it is extraordinary that, in trust schools and particularly academies, private companies will now have power over elected parent governors, never mind head teachers and elected local education authorities. That is a strange vision of localism and accountability. There is a danger in saying that independence is the solution to the problems in our schools, in the same way that we said that comprehensive education was the one-size-fits-all solution. We have had a healthy debate, and it has been interesting and valuable to take part because none of those who have contributed have fallen into the trap of talking about party political positions, but we must be aware of the danger of saying that independence in itself, or a comprehensive education in itself, is the key to unlocking the door and will give us wonderful schools everywhere. Let me also sound a brief note of caution. I understand the vision outlined by the hon. Member for Harwich, but we must listen to schools. Throughout proceedings on the Education and Inspections Bill, there was lots of talk about how we must empower schools, but are we listening to schools in the first place? In January, a Guardian/ICM poll of 805 head teachers and assistant head teachers showed that only 29 per cent. backed plans to free schools from direct local education authority control, but I suspect that such things are not taken into account in those debates or when we discuss measures such as those in the Bill. Indeed, in The Independent in April, Mick Brookes, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said that trust schools are"““all smoke and mirrors. We already have freedom as heads. You don’t have to buy into local authority services if you don’t want to.””" Again, are we falling into the trap of political dogma? To conclude, there is little concrete evidence that self-governing independent status for state schools drives up standards, and driving up standards is the one thing to which we are all absolutely committed. The Minister could mention other examples, but in the case of academies, there is extra funding and various other things. As we know, academies have a mixed record, so independence in itself does not deliver— [Interruption.] The Minister is welcome to intervene.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
447 c42-4WH 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Admissions Curriculum Charitable trusts Local education authorities Public sector Schools
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk