Schools White Paper

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement of the Secretary of State in another place entitled, Higer Standards, Better Schools for All. That is exactly what it says. I am not sure what that spelling says about the standard of literacy in the Department for Education and Skills. However, let us turn to the content of the Statement. We have heard a lot about school freedom, and here the Minister has a case. If the Government have really turned their back on top-down centralist control of English schools, they will have our support, as long as the entitlement of the children to a good education is not affected. Can the Minister confirm that the DfES will keep complete control of school funding? Is it not, therefore, central government that stifles variety, on the basis that he who pays the piper calls the tune? Is it not the Treasury and his own department’s rules that prevent local communities building the schools they need? The Ford Motor Company used to say that you could have any colour you liked as long as it was black. The Government say that you can have any new school you like as long as it is an academy—before there has been any proper evaluation of the success or otherwise of the few existing academies. A similar statement can be made about grant-maintained schools. Crucially, should not schools serve whole communities and not just the parents of the pupils who temporarily attend them? Can the Minister tell the House what powers the Chancellor has given up? What powers has the Secretary of State given up? Without the Chancellor’s signature on the policy, how can we expect the changes to be irreversible? He has been ominously quiet during the past few days of dizzying spin and Cabinet splits. Listening to the Minister’s words, one might think that this is not the end of local democratic involvement with education, contrary to the impression given by the Prime Minister’s weekend pronouncements outside the House of Commons. But why is he still seeking to hand over admissions policies to schools, when it is the one protective power that parents really need their local community to keep? Does not he realise that handing over admissions risks a free for all between schools—competition not co-operation—producing a shambles that will confuse parents and not help them? What happens when too many parents want to send their children to the same school? Who decides? Who will check the marketing materials produced by ambitious schools to prevent overclaiming? Will there be a new quango—perhaps the school advertising standards authority? Does not the Minister realise that no school is an island and that what one school does with admissions always affects the intake of all other local schools? Surely we want a variety of locally based social markets in education, not the Secretary of State’s free market. In her model, who will speak up for special needs and looked-after children? Who will guarantee fairness and equality of opportunity in her new system? How can the local authority carry out those roles in her free market model? The Government’s answer seems to be parent power. That may work in some places, but what will the Secretary of State do in areas where schools struggle to get any parents to serve as governors? The Minister talks about expanding schools. I accept that that can work, especially with school federations. However, can he say whether a school will be able to choose its size and build its ethos on being small if it wants to; or could a school be forced to double in size under the plans? If people want to go there, it could become a victim of its own success. When it comes to choice, we are for real, meaningful choice—a choice of good schools in every community; a choice that can be achieved by grasping the opportunity presented by falling secondary school numbers. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that the government figures show nearly half a million fewer children coming into secondary schools in the next 10 years? Is not that the spare capacity that we need for meaningful parental choice and for raising quality and standards? Is not the future years of falling pupil numbers the best time to copy in the state system the most desirable things about private schools, things for which parents are prepared to pay large amounts of money: small classes and small schools? As Mike Tomlinson said, what is important is what happens in the classroom. The Government are tinkering with structures yet again, instead of focusing on improving the education delivered to each and every child in each and every classroom. Surely the ideas that we have just heard will have almost no impact on the fact that 25 per cent of 17 year-olds are not in full-time education or training. Would not it be more radical to give them real choice: to free up the curriculum for 14 to 19 year-olds and revisit the Tomlinson plans for diplomas? Perhaps the most disappointing thing in the Statement was the lack of new ideas for primary education. Does not the Minister recognise that the best way to improve secondary education is to ensure that children get a good start and are able to read, write and add up? Is not the real barrier to higher standards the fact that nearly half of 11 year-olds cannot do all that? Surely the focus today on structures rather than standards will not change anything in the classroom and government over-prescription on what schools do with the new individual learning money will not help. Halfway through the Every Child Matters agenda, the White Paper presents real problems with seeing the school as the hub for a wide range of services. Can the Minister say how the marginalisation of the role of the LEA affects that agenda and the duty to protect children? The Government declined to accept amendments to the Children Act 2004 that would have specifically listed schools in the arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. In the light of today’s proposals to give more freedom to a greater number of schools, will the Minister amend the Children Act to ensure that our vulnerable children are well supported? Our schools need reform. The status quo is far from perfect, and we support sensible change. We want schools to be free from Whitehall but not free from serving their local community. Labour wants to retain central controls and keep the purse strings. We will support real choice for parents, using falling rolls to drive up standards, not to drive convoys of school buses taking children miles away to find a good school. Today, Labour has offered yet more structural reform that, we believe, will achieve little.