---

Education and Skills Bill

The Conservative party believes strongly in the goal of higher rates of participation in education and training to the age of 18. Not only do we believe in it, we are passionate about it. High quality education is the key to prosperity and the route out of poverty, and, conversely, poor quality schools are a life sentence to unfulfilled lives and low levels of social mobility. The Government are right to have an objective of raising participation age and their aspiration that 100 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds should stay in education until the age of 18 is right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said on Second Reading:"““We believe that getting more young people to participate fruitfully in education for longer—and not just to age 18—is an unalloyed good.””—[Official Report, 14 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 668.]" The Government are right to be worried about the fact that only 77 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds stay on in education to 18, which puts this country in a lamentable 19th position in the league table of participation rates in developed countries. That figure is a serious problem for this country in an open, global economy where knowledge and expertise are the keys to innovation and vital to ensuring market share and national prosperity. Such a low staying-on rate is a symptom of deeper problems in our education system. The approach of passing a law to make it a criminal offence to leave education or training before the age of 18 is an attempt to tackle the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause. Today, 53 per cent.. of 16-year-olds leave compulsory education without having achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including in English and maths. Yet I know of several comprehensive schools that have a truly comprehensive intake of a range of abilities, where 96 per cent. achieve five or more GCSEs at A* to C, including English and maths. Maths specialists tell us that almost every 15 and 16-year-old, apart from those with specific learning difficulties, is capable of achieving at least a grade C in GCSE maths. Why is that not happening? One in five 11-year-olds leave primary schools unable to read effectively despite seven years of primary education. Forty per cent. start secondary school without achieving a level in reading, writing and maths combined that would enable them to benefit from secondary education. That is the source of the 23 per cent. who do not stay on in education or training until the age of 16, of the 500,000 persistent truants and of the 40 per cent. who fail to achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C. Ministers say that the purpose of compulsion is to tackle the stubborn final 10 per cent. and raise participation from 90 per cent. to 100 per cent. However, we are still a long way from 90 per cent. We have a staying-on rate of only 77 per cent. and the disaffection that leads to 23 per cent. dropping out at 16 has the same causes as that of the final 10 per cent. We simply do not believe that criminalising the 10 per cent. will achieve any higher educational attainment for that group. The Government commissioned research into the international experience of introducing compulsion. The National Foundation for Educational Research concluded:"““There was little or no evidence of the likely impact of introducing a system of compulsory education or training to the age of 18.””" That conclusion is supported by charities that specialise in helping especially vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds—the group that the Bill aims to help. Nigel Haynes, chief executive of Fairbridge, which works with young people who have deep-seated problems, said in his evidence to the Committee:"““what evidence is there that compulsion has an effect? With the young people we deal with, the fact that they come because they want to and stay because they want to is a stronger motivation for change.””––[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2008; c. 193, Q445.]" Martina Milburn of the Prince's Trust said:"““We have great concerns about compulsion. If we are looking at the experience of the Prince's Trust with the young people on our programmes… the bulk of those young people came through a voluntary programme.””––[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 16, Q34.]" The NUT stated in written evidence:"““The NUT is concerned that the focus in the Bill on sanctions and criminalisation for failing to participate may be counter-productive.””––[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 5 February 2008; c. 315.]" Alison Woolf has been cited frequently in the debate. She raised concerns about the effect of compulsion on the labour market and the employment prospects for 16 and 17-year-olds, especially given the legal duties that the Bill imposes on employers. She said that"““the negative impact that the Bill will have by effectively destroying the labour market for 16 and 17-year-olds is enormously underestimated.””––[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 107, Q272.]" The Government should examine the causes of the problem to determine why so many people are so disaffected with our education system that more leave school at 16 without going on to further education in this country than in most developed countries. As the Children's Rights Alliance stated:"““Young people who leave education at 16 do so because they have a history of unsatisfactory experiences in the education system, or because they have issues in their lives.””" That does not mean that those young people are not entitled to an academic secondary education. It means that they went to one of the 49 per cent. of schools that Ofsted categorises as ““not good enough””, or—worse—they attended one of the 638 failing secondary schools, or they started secondary education with a reading age of nine or lower, or they went to a secondary school where behaviour was out of control and the prevailing ethos was one in which being seen to work and study hard was to be uncool and an invitation to be bullied. Two weeks ago, I visited a secondary school where more than half the intake had a reading age of nine or below. That is unacceptable. No child should leave primary school with such poor reading skills. Reading is a low level skill, which every child, whatever their ability, should have mastered in the first years of primary school. As Alison Woolf said in her paper, ““Diminished Returns””:"““One of the best-established findings in educational research is that children who are behind when they leave primary school find it almost impossible to catch up… With very few exceptions, children who are performing well at age 11 do not, at age 17 or 18, figure as NEETs.””" That is of course true. Nothing demotivates a person more than not being able to do something that they are meant to be able to do. Starting secondary school still unable to read properly and with ease is bound to lead to five more years of disaffection with education. That is why we intend to introduce a screening test—a simple, standardised reading test—at the end of the second year of primary education, to ensure that every child can decode words effortlessly, including false words. For too many decades we have allowed millions of children to emerge without having mastered the basic skills of reading. That is no longer acceptable to the Government, the public or our party. Tom Wilson of the TUC told the Public Bill Committee:"““A lot of working people feel very angry that the system has let them down and that they have gone through 10 years of school and emerged unable to read or write.””––[Official Report, Education and Skills Bill Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 52, Q132.]" They are right to be angry. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—I do not know whether I should mention him, but I have—was right to conclude his speech on Second Reading thus:"““My plea is for the group whom we are failing most…they are in no way damaged…They are very bright. The question is: why, when they are so bright, do we fail them so dismally?””—[Official Report, 14 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 705-06.]" We need to ensure that our education system uses teaching methods and the curriculum that the evidence demonstrates are most effective and that are not based simply on a fad or someone's assertion. The decades-long ideological experiment of look-and-say and real books has been deeply damaging to millions of children, particularly those from the poorest backgrounds. That, combined with mixed-ability teaching in secondary schools and a culture of low expectations in too many inner-city schools, has left this country with one of the lowest participation rates in the developed world. Tackling that issue lies at the core of raising participation, rather than introducing a Bill that criminalises the young people whom our education system has let down, threatens the youth labour market and burdens colleges and local authorities with new costs. Organisations that work with the most vulnerable young people say that the Bill and the concept of compulsion will simply not work.