Education and Inspections Bill

My Lords, as a former geography teacher, albeit a long time ago, I have to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Gould, over the value of his geography O-level, although I accept that it would have been an advantage to have English and maths in addition. Like other Members of this House, I have been a teacher, I am a parent, and I have been a local councillor and a school governor. I have now come back to education, working part time for a children’s charity that is setting up city academies in disadvantaged communities. In my time tonight, I want to concentrate, like others, on the controversial areas in the Bill. I will start with two sets of statistics that may help to set the context somewhat—perhaps somewhere between the two sets of statistics is the rationale for further change. First, the good—it is often very good—news. Spending per pupil has increased dramatically and will continue to rise. By 2008, it is expected to have doubled per pupil since 1997. As others have said, the sustained programme of capital spending is transforming the physical state of our schools around the country. The number of failing schools has halved since 1997 and results have improved across the piece in primary and secondary schools. We have got the best-ever GCSE results, for example. By the way, as someone whose son has just gone through those exams, I do not subscribe to the ““dumbing down”” thesis, and neither will those other Members of this House who have been sharing the rigours of coursework and revision at GCSE, AS and A2 levels—we have been commiserating at length with one another. But then the less good news. While pupils in more affluent areas of the country have a 70 per cent chance of achieving at least five good GCSE passes, the figure is still only 30 per cent in our most disadvantaged communities. In higher education, while graduation rates have increased by 26 per cent for the top one-fifth, the figure is just 3 per cent extra for the poorest income groups. While the number of failing schools has fallen, there remains a stubborn group of these schools that are not turning round; there is also an even more stubborn group of schools which are not in that category but are simply not good enough and are making painfully slow progress. Critics of the Bill have said various things—both tonight and, particularly, in previous weeks and in the media—including that it is not necessary; that it is unfair; that things are improving and so we should just leave them alone to continue to improve; that things should settle down; that we should stop meddling; that it is an unrelated package of reform; that we should go back to GM schools, which should not have gone anyway; or that it will introduce unfairness. I think that the Bill is about two main things. First, it seeks to raise standards for the majority and not the minority, and so widen opportunity; and, secondly, it is about fairness. It builds on a whole series of earlier reforms, every one of which has been opposed by sections of political parties, the teaching unions and various groups throughout the community, with different groups opposing different parts. Literacy and numeracy hours, the publication of league tables, the direct funding of schools so that head teachers can plan ahead, the development of specialist schools, workforce reform and city academies—each one has had strong opposition at different times. All these reforms have been introduced by this Labour Government because they are focused on improving school provision for all, but especially for those who cannot buy access to a good school. Why did we not keep grant-maintained schools? Because they were not fair; they had an unfair financial package. Foundation schools maintain the freedoms but with a fair funding level. The Bill therefore builds on and learns from the experience of foundation schools, voluntary-aided schools and city academies. These schools often share common characteristics. Many truths, half-truths and falsehoods are bandied around, but I think that the core facts are these. First, these schools are popular with parents. Why? Because they usually have a strong ethos, they have clear expectations of behaviour and often have impressive head teachers. So when we talk about what parents want, let us not forget that popularity and that success. Secondly, they have improved and are improving academic standards. Why do they tend to succeed? I think primarily because they are attractive to the very head teachers we seek to recruit, who want to exercise more decision making affecting their own school’s destiny rather than feeling controlled by others; who are keen to innovate; who want to bring into the new school a new network of people from the local community and beyond. They value new expertise and energy, new enthusiasm and new contacts to help the students—be that by acting as mentors, by offering new kinds of work experience and by providing outside speakers or skills as governors. In so many ways, that can actually raise the aspirations of the very students whom all of us seek to help and give back-up to the head and to the teaching staff. I do not think that this makes them isolated or elitist, but it does make them popular and vibrant. I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said earlier about heads and teaching being the absolute core of success, but they are at times affected also by structures and by wanting a level of freedom over their schools. And so to trust schools, which are obviously the area of most controversy. I think that they will bring together the powers of foundation and voluntary-aided schools and build on the experiences of specialist schools and academies. To me, they are about trying to make sure that every local school has the opportunity to be a good school. It is very difficult for those involved in national and local government to want to give up control and to vote for it. That is for two simple reasons. People come into government to do things—to put ideas into practice—and nearly everyone involved obviously has the best of motives, especially in relation to education. But the evidence is that a balance of central direction and school-level freedoms work best. Yes, we must continue with national targets, transparent inspections and tables—there is no question of a free-for-all or some kind of unfettered market—but we need to enhance the current scope that there is for schools to feel responsible for the destiny of the pupils in their care. We should welcome the opportunity for LEAs to move to a new role as commissioners and as overseers of the education provision in their areas. Let us not forget that high standards and choice have always been available, and continue to be available, to those who can afford it, whether that is via private schools, moving to the right neighbourhood or intensive tutoring after school. Let us not kid ourselves that current schooling provides a level playing field. In my current role, it is fascinating—and, indeed, a privilege—to see the effect of moving a failing school for 11 to 16 year-olds to a city academy and to see the effect that the change in the structure has on the school. That is not to underestimate the size of the challenge, but the change has led to a rush of energy, the appointment of a great head teacher, the input of a range of new ideas and expertise, and the chance to innovate. We are moving to four small schools under one umbrella, developing depth before breadth, doing a lot of intensive work on literacy and numeracy before introducing the full range of subjects, and having the chance to change the school day. But it is done within the same budget per pupil, with local admissions and no selection. It is still a local school, serving the same local community it served before, but, I hope, offering different opportunities to those same pupils. The structure is allowing that change to happen; it is allowing the chance to innovate and to raise morale. It is allowing the recruitment of new teachers who have ideas and want to see change. I am proud of what the Government have achieved in education, but while we still have failing, coasting or complacent schools, we cannot sit back and say that the system is fine. This debate is not about teaching or structures; it is about structures helping to deliver the high standards that we all seek, especially for those who are still being failed. That is why the Bill deserves our support.