Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Skidelsky (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 5 July 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Education and Inspections Bill.


Education and Inspections Bill

I am a bit puzzled as to why the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is so sceptical about choice and diversity in education. Presumably, she would accept that they are valuable in many other areas of life, and it is the way that the independent sector works. It is not that they are all different, but all schools have some variations and parents and children have the freedom to choose which sort of school they prefer. A catchment area really should be a laboratory of educational ideas and practices, and the Bill goes a little way towards making that so. I suspect that underlying the noble Baroness's attitude is the supreme value that she attaches to social cohesion. I agree that social cohesion is very important but it should not be at the expense of a good education for individual children. An education Bill is first and foremost about education and, inthat context, social cohesion is secondary. This amendment, and particularly Amendment No. 16, would give too much power to local authorities to object to new types of schools on the grounds that they damage social objectives.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c292 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Disability Children Assessments Admissions Discipline Community development Community schools Governing bodies Faith schools Foundation schools Local government Pupil exclusions Local education authorities Pupils Standards Special educational needs School choice Secondary education Social services Academies Trust schools
Legislation
Education and Inspections Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk