Education and Inspections Bill

There is much in this Bill that is sensible and well thought out and builds on the Government’s excellent progress in education. But I deeply regret that I cannot support the Government’s proposals for trust schools because I believe them to be wrong in principle and flawed in practice. Moreover, I believe that far from improving education for the most disadvantaged children, they will in fact disadvantage them further. There are two things that we try to do in education. One is to pass on the skills that we need to the next generation, but the other is to transmit values to them. One cannot contract out that process—it is one of the basic responsibilities of civil society. Yet that is what we propose to do here. We propose to allow foundations, businesses and charitable organisations not simply to be partners in schools but to own and control them. The proposal stems from two propositions—first, the belief that the current system has failed and, secondly, the belief that the measure will fix it. It is difficult for the Government to argue the first proposition when they keep announcing educational successes. They are right to do so, because the latest Ofsted report makes it clear that the proportion of good or excellent teaching has increased enormously since 1997. The number of schools causing concern or in special measures has fallen, and results have improved. The Opposition hate that fact, as they would rather that kids did not achieve many good results, but the numbers attaining five good GCSEs and better A-levels, as well as the proportion of children staying on at school, are increasing all the time. It is therefore difficult to argue the first proposition. There are still problems in the education system that need to be reformed, and I hope to come on to that later. The question is whether the measure offers the right reform—will it fix the problem? Quite simply, there is zero evidence that people who have made a great deal of money are good at running schools. When the Select Committee examined the White Paper that preceded the Bill it said:"““No causal link has been demonstrated between external partners and the success of a school, or the independence of a school from local authority control and its success.””" The Government have cited the example of specialist schools and academies. Our predecessor Committee said in 2003 that research on specialist schools could not separate the effect of an external partner from the large injection of cash that such schools receive. The data on academies is such that the case for them is still unproven. Most academies accept a smaller proportion of deprived children than their predecessor schools, but while some have improved results, others have stalled and some have produced worse results. We are therefore being asked to make a leap of faith. In a form of educational creationism we are asked to proclaim ““All the evidence is against it, but I believe it anyway.”” Doing so, however, would result in the creation of a system that is unfair, does not meet parents’ aspirations, and fails to address many of the problems that remain. Despite the work that the Government have done on admissions—I acknowledge that work and give them full credit for it—the key question is who monitors admissions procedure. The Select Committee recommended that it should be local authorities working with school admissions forums that set benchmarks and produce annual reports. The whole process would be accompanied by an annual report to the House. Admissions forums, which are largely ad hoc bodies, are not capable of doing that by themselves, and they cannot administer an extremely complex system used by different admissions authorities. It is assumed that diversity in itself promotes choice, but the evidence does not stack up. Diversity and choice are two different things. In the London borough of Barnet, which has a large number of different schools and admissions authorities, 52 per cent. secure their first-choice school. In my local authority, the figure is 97 per cent. In other parts of the north-west, it is 99 per cent. The evidence for that assumption is simply not there. A great deal of evidence was given to the Select Committee showing that a wide variety of schools increases social segregation and clusters the poorest children in a small number of schools. I am worried about that, and I fear, too, the people who are waiting in the wings to take advantage of the proposal. Make no mistake—creationists and fundamentalists of all colours and creeds are waiting to use the proposal to take over schools. At a time when we ought to bring our young people together and allow them to learn to live together, I fear that we will push them further apart, which would be disastrous for this country. There are contradictions in what is proposed. A Government who want to restore community cohesion want to move away from community schools. A Government whose whole agenda for 14 to 19 education, extended schools and even the youth service depends on co-operation between institutions have not accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee to put in the Bill a duty of co-operation between trust schools. There is much that we need to do to reform education. We must get our best teachers into the most challenging schools. We must find out why some schools in very difficult circumstances produce excellent results and others do not. We need to manage the transition from primary to secondary school and make the personalised learning agenda a reality through proper training. The Bill is not the right reform to achieve that. It is not a reform for this century, but a return to the notion of philanthropism that applied in the 19th century. When my hon. Friends look at charities, I hope that they will remember that famous Labour saying—yes, it is an old Labour saying, and I am proud of it—that private charity is no substitute for organised justice.