House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Jun 1995

Hansard

House of Commons

Tuesday 27 June 1995

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION

Class Sizes

1. Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will commission research on the effect of class size on achievement in education. [29107]

The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The hon. Gentleman asks about achievement in education. It is my view that that depends on the quality of teaching.

Mr. Williams: In fact, I asked about class sizes. Why do the Government insist on the nonsense that class sizes do not matter? It goes against common sense. Has the Secretary of State seen the report published a couple of weeks ago by the National Commission on Education, which draws attention to the importance of class size in primary and, particularly, infant schools? Has she seen the research carried out in Tennessee, whereby a comparison of a class of 15 pupils with a class of 25 pupils shows that higher standards are achieved and pupils behave better in smaller classes? Is it not a shameful record of this Government that class sizes have risen from 25--

Madam Speaker: Order. This is a very bad start. I constantly harass Ministers to give brief replies, so I must ask Back Benchers to put brief questions.

Mr. Williams: May I wind up my question?

Madam Speaker: Order. We do not wind up questions. I think that the Minister has got the point.

Mrs. Shephard: I am, of course, aware of the document from the National Commission on Education. I am also aware of the most recent research from the United States. Even if research from America tells us that class sizes of 13 or 15 are desirable, research from America and from here tells us that interventions that impact on teaching methods rather than on class size offer better results and better value for money. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that class sizes have edged up a little over the past two years and standards have risen a great deal.

Mr. Dunn: May I support my right hon. Friend's view that it is the quality of teaching that matters? Does she remember the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) that some teachers can

Column 670

teach 60 children in a bus shelter and achieve good results while other teachers will have a riot on their hands with one dead chicken?

Mrs. Shephard: As I said, achievement in education depends on the quality of teaching and the quality of teachers. Very large classes can be more difficult to teach, but it is important to remember that Her Majesty's chief inspector has never suggested that current class sizes are depressing standards. I reassure my hon. Friend that I agree with the drift of our right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson).

Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question on commissioning research? Is it not a disgrace that we must depend on American research like the Tennessee Star project and the Ypsilanti project on nursery education? Is it not a fact that, in the past 10 years, education research expenditure has been cut from £79 million to £23 million a year? Does that not show callous indifference by the Government towards the educational needs of the country?

Mrs. Shephard: In a word, no. What is a fact is that, although class sizes have edged up a bit over the past two years, so have standards. Standards have gone up a great deal, despite the Opposition's best efforts to vote against every measure to raise standards. There is a lot of research evidence around. We shall have more information from the Office for Standards in Education database. At present, I do not see a case for more long-term research on class sizes as such, but I see every reason for having useful research that can improve standards.

Parental Choice

2. Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has had about the exercise of parental choice of schools on the Isle of Wight. [29108]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): The Department has received correspondence in respect of 2pupils who have not been offered a place in their first choice of school for the coming September.

Mr. Field: My hon. Friend is aware that Janet Dawson from his Department has visited the island to look at the admissions policy, and that the education officer has publicly stated that there was an error in the school numbers. What advice can my hon. Friend offer about the coming year to the parents, who are frustrated, the angry school governors and head teachers? Does he agree that the promise of a review for the next year just will not do?

Mr. Squire: I obviously have considerable sympathy for my hon. Friend's point and those made on behalf of the parents whom he represents. I can confirm that my officials have been in contact with the local education authority, although none of the cases raised with us to date provides scope for action by the Department. My hon. Friend knows that the school must admit up to its minimum number, but it is entirely open to the LEA to agree higher admission numbers with that school. If it wishes to admit more pupils, and it cannot get the LEA to agree to that, it can write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Column 671

Drugs

3. Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about drugs education and the national curriculum. [29109]

The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): My right hon. Friend and I are committed to the Department--and the education service--playing a full part in the Government's widely welcomed strategy for drug prevention. Aspects of drug education are a statutory requirement of national curriculum science for pupils aged from five to 16, demonstrating the importance that we attach to the subject. It is, of course, for schools to decide how best to organise drug education for their pupils. We have, however, set out in our recent circular the principles that we believe should underpin effective drug education, and at our request the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has drawn up guidance to help schools to plan their curriculum provision in that area.

Mrs. Knight: Young people hear of drugs from a frighteningly young age, so I welcome my hon. Friend's initiative. Does he agree that it is not just what is taught that is important but who teaches it? Teenagers in particular are far more likely to listen to warnings from people with whom they identify, who are probably just a few years older than them, than to listen to warnings from someone of my age, whom they would instantly assume probably does not understand and was never young anyway?

Mr. Forth: I hope that any young person would listen attentively to my hon. Friend, as we all do when she pronounces. She has made an important point. Our circular makes it clear that schools should look imaginatively at every way in which they can get the message about drugs across to young vulnerable people. That will include using teachers in their authoritative positions and anyone from outside a school whom the school considers to be appropriate for its pupils to listen to and be guided by. We want to leave as much of the strategy as possible to the schools to decide, within the framework and the guidance that we have offered them in support. I am confident that that will happen.

Secondary Schools

4. Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many secondary schools have opted out of local authority control in the last three years. [29110]

Mr. Robin Squire: In the past three years, 448of England's secondary schools have become grant-maintained.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister share the concern of the people of Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency, that the boon of praise that the Government give for those schools that have opted out has obviously not been shared in Northern Ireland, where it is now apparently policy for grammar schools to report to the education boards when hitherto they reported to the Department of Education? Is this a seamless Government or are we witnessing a different way of governing Northern Ireland, against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Member will know that my remit does not extend to the schools in Northern

Column 672

Ireland, but I may say from this Dispatch Box, without risking too much, that, first, I shall relay his comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I understand that those comments arise from a consultation paper that my right hon. and learned Friend has issued for discussion. Secondly, I also understand that the aim of the specific proposal to which the hon. Gentleman referred is to simplify school funding and not to extend local authority control over schools. Voluntary grammar schools will continue to be self-governing and there is no intention of changing their autonomy in that respect.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend, however, bear it in mind that if we manage to achieve extra funds for education in the forthcoming year, many Conservative Members will want to make sure that the money goes straight to schools and not to local education authorities to do with as they will? Will he look seriously at any proposal for extra cash to ensure that it goes direct to schools?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the many curious aspects of the policy document that appeared from the Opposition last week was that it tried to justify how, if 10 per cent. of the funding of existing, successful grant-maintained schools was taken away, those schools would still be as effective and efficient as they are at present.

Mr. Rooker: As the Member with probably the country's largest opted- out secondary school in his constituency, with more than 2,000 pupils, may I ask why the Minister thinks that so few schools--he gave a figure of 400- -have opted out in the past three years? How many of those have opted out in the past 12 months?

Mr. Squire: The practical reason why relatively few schools have opted out in the past 12 months compared with the previous 12 months is that more than nine out of 10 governing bodies have still refused to give parents the opportunity to vote. If I may extrapolate from that why that should be so, the reason is that Labour Members and councillors and Labour- controlled councils up and down the country are still utterly opposed to grant-maintained schools,

notwithstanding the sweet words that we have heard from the Labour Front Bench.

Dame Angela Rumbold: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity, following his last answer, to reaffirm that the Government will follow the climate of the Education Reform Act 1988 for grant-maintained schools, maintain exactly the same circumstances in which schools can opt out and tell the country very clearly that the gobbledegook that has come from the Labour party recently on grant-maintained schools is not acceptable to a Conservative Government?

Mr. Squire: I readily reassure my right hon. Friend in that respect. I saw nothing in the past seven days, and I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend did, to persuade us that there was a better way of treating grant-maintained schools than the one that we have established. All the Labour party tried, and failed, to do was to reconcile the preferences of a number of leading Labour politicians with the utter hatred that so many of them have for self-government.

Column 673

Capital Works, Ealing

5. Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the level of supplementary credit approval for capital works requested by the London borough of Ealing for the present financial year; and what was the level approved. [29111]

Mr. Robin Squire: No specific requests have yet been made by Ealing for supplementary credit approvals--SCAs--for schools in 1995-96 and thus no SCAs have as yet been issued to the authority. However, the Department is considering whether a further SCA can be issued in 1995-96 for the LEA's liability on capital works at Cardinal Wiseman Roman Catholic voluntary- aided high school, which received SCA cover in 1993-94 and 1994-95.

Mr. Khabra: Does the Minister agree that, in my borough and across London, resources are being reduced at a time when the number of schoolchildren in London is increasing faster than the national average? Does he agree that the system for determining education annual capital guidelines needs investigating to ensure that resources are directed to where they are most needed?

Mr. Squire: No, I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the essence of his question. The capital guidelines for the current year--the total amount that the Government approve for capital spending by local authorities--was increased in cash terms by 3.5 per cent. The priorities were drawn up a decade ago in discussion with local authorities. I have made it clear that I am happy to revisit those priorities, but the hon. Gentleman would not expect his authority to be treated differently from the rest. The priorities will, logically, continue to be existing projects, meeting basic need, and the removal of surplus places.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for the good work at Cardinal Wiseman high school. All the money will be well spent there. Ealing Labour council has £17 million in reserves, yet it has the effrontery to cut teachers' jobs--it is seeking to cut three at Northolt primary school which should be restored immediately. It has no right to deprive children of a proper education by taking away teachers' jobs or money from schools; there is plenty in the bank and Ealing Labour council had better put it back into schools straight away.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend does well to remind us of the great discretion that local education authorities enjoy over how they spend their money, but the example of my hon. Friend's Labour-run authority is a very bad one. My hon. Friend also reminds me that the Government's borrowing approvals are but a part of the total capital spending. Indeed, in the most recent full year for which I have figures--1993-94--they represented only 50 per cent. of the total amount spent on our schools.

Assisted Places Scheme

6. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will commission studies into the educational impact on their original schools caused by the departure of pupils on assisted places schemes. [29112]

Column 674

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: No. The scheme is an outstanding success, and it is here to stay.

Mr. Flynn: Nought out of 10, I am afraid. Would the Secretary of State care to read the question again and try to do better next time? I am seeking to make the serious point that none of the appraisals of the assisted places scheme has concentrated on the effect on feeder schools of having their brightest pupils creamed off. Such schools lose those pupils who give an example to others and who take the lead and set the pace. If we are to make a proper appraisal of the scheme, is it not essential that we consider the effect of creaming off those pupils?

Mrs. Shephard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not articulating any hostility towards selection, the assisted places scheme or, indeed, independent schools. His Front-Bench team has performed at least half a dozen U-turns on education policy since the beginning of the year. Last week, we were given to understand that it was paying lip service to diversity in education--although the small print revealed that it was not. Next month, the hon. Gentleman might find that his Front-Bench team has left him in the lurch--and that is not a very comfortable place to be.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Surely my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will agree that whether a school is full of SAT--standard assessment task--level 8 or SAT level 2 children should make no difference to the quality of the school. As the purpose of teaching is to bring the best out of every child, it should make no difference to a school, although it may make a difference to the individual child. Should not every teacher concentrate on each child's potential, regardless of the level that each child is innately able to reach?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. The whole point of the assisted places scheme is that it offers choice and opportunity to able children from less well-off families, and what a pity it is that at this stage, and this month, Opposition Members do not seem to be in favour of it.

Nursery Education

7. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she expects all three and four-year-olds, whose parents wish it, to be in nursery education. [29113]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Prime Minister's commitment is to provide, over time, a pre-school place for every four-year-old whose parents wish to take it up, with the first new places, with new money, coming on stream in the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Prentice: Is it not an absolute disgrace that, almost 25 years after Baroness Thatcher pledged that every three and four-year old should have a nursery place if the parents wanted it, the Government have not delivered on that pledge? Why have the Government got it in for three-year- olds?

Mrs. Shephard: We do not believe in printing money. We are planning to provide places for all four-year-olds in the first instance. It is clearly best to take one carefully planned step at a time.

Column 675

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) appears to forget that the Labour party was in power between 1974 and 1979. Having been in local government, and having been the deputy chairman of an education authority, may I tell my right hon. Friend that I accept that the education received by a young child--boy or girl--at the nursery stage will undoubtedly affect that child's career, ultimately, and his ability to do well in his subsequent years in education? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that we warmly welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to nursery education?

Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend. I am currently putting the finishing touches on the policy and I shall make a full announcement to the House in the next couple of weeks. I have always made it clear that early education is very important. We shall base our policy on maximum choice for parents between the maintained and the private and voluntary sectors. We shall ensure that, whatever delivery mechanism is used, it will not crowd out the private and voluntary sectors. We shall also make sure that the scheme is practical and of good quality and that it will work successfully.

Mr. Don Foster: Further to the Secretary of State's answer, will she confirm that, in respect of the delivery of expanded nursery education, she has said frequently that the use of vouchers would be unnecessarily complicated and bureaucratic? Will she also acknowledge that the Prime Minister clearly overruled her in his statement on Saturday? Does she believe that that stems from complete ignorance, stupidity, or the unacceptable slap of firm leadership?

Mrs. Shephard: Dear me, the hon. Gentleman can do better than that. I have said frequently from this Dispatch Box and elsewhere that the delivery mechanism would have to provide choice for parents and that nothing was ruled in and nothing was ruled out. However, I can confirm that putting buying power and choice in the hands of parents will be a key feature of the scheme and that, therefore, vouchers will be part of it.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the steady advance of nursery education is not intended to be at the expense of the pre-school playgroup movement, which has received considerable support from the Government?

Mrs. Shephard: Yes. I can confirm that the scheme will certainly not crowd out the important voluntary sector, and I have also mentioned the private sector. The work of the pre-school playgroup movement has been invaluable to the learning experience of millions of children. It is interesting that the movement has rechristened itself the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which I think signifies the importance that it places on the education that it provides.

Mr. Blunkett: The Secretary of State may have read in this morning's papers about the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and the fact that Mr. Spock and the occupants of Planet Vulcan do not believe in nursery education at all. On Saturday, the Prime Minister emeritus told us that there was a new definition of nursery provision which included any place for any child. Although we support pre-school and other provision, does the Secretary of State agree that, in defending herself against the onset of vouchers, she must

Column 676

also make it absolutely clear--so that she is not left uncomfortably in the lurch--that she still believes in nursery places for four-year-olds and that she believes in places for every four- year-old, not just those whose parents who can afford to top up a voucher or travel a long way to a place?

Mrs. Shephard: I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman on all those counts. I am sure that he will be further reassured when I make my detailed announcement to the House. My reading this morning included an interesting letter from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in which he describes Labour's new education policy as a "big, bad idea". I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman read that.

School Standards

8. Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what increased resources her Department is providing to raise standards in primary and secondary schools in Somerset. [29114]

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will have welcomed last week's decision to raise the capping limit for Somerset. It is, however, for the authority to decide the level of funding that it provides for its services, including education, from the increased total available. There is no clear causal connection between levels of education expenditure and standards achieved.

Mr. Robinson: Despite the result of Somerset's appeal, is my hon. Friend aware that there are still to be 35 compulsory redundancies in schools in Somerset or thereabouts? Does he realise that that runs counter to a pledge that was given by the Liberal Democrat leader of Somerset county council, that the £4 million agreed package with local Members of Parliament would obviate the need for such redundancies? Does that not show that Liberal Democrats, as always, do not honour their commitments, do not stand by their pledges and are not prepared to put Somerset's children first?

Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was perplexed- -nay, shocked--at what I learnt about Somerset. It does seem to me to be perverse, to say the least, although not surprising, that the Liberal Democrats should so casually go back on their promise. I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will press very hard indeed for an explanation from the authority as to why it is playing politics with children's education, and then seek to pressure that authority to use the increased money available to it to better education in the way that I am sure that all his constituents and other people in Somerset expected.

Education Authority Budgets

9. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration she has given to the preparation of the budgets for education authorities for 1996-97. [29115]

Mr. Robin Squire: The public expenditure survey for spending in 1996 -97 is currently under way.

Mr. Dowd: Can the Secretary of State explain why education authorities, parents or schools should believe her protestation of jam tomorrow, in the light of their

Column 677

experience this year and in all the previous years? If it is because the Prime Minister has committed himself to that, can she be certain that he is telling her the truth, any more than the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) told her the truth last Friday about his intentions for the leadership of the Conservative party?

Mr. Squire: If I can bring the hon. Gentleman back to education matters for a moment, I should like to say that he starts off from an interesting position in criticising education funding, as his own authority had an increase of 4.6 per cent. this year, which is the type of increase that most of his hon. Friends, and certainly most of my hon. Friends, would have welcomed. However, it is not a question of jam tomorrow, as he puts it. We shall increase spending on education as the economy continues to improve, but we have increased spending until now. As the hon. Gentleman will know if he is reminded, since we came to office spending per pupil has increased by about 50 per cent. and spending per pupil on repairs and maintenance has increased by about 15 per cent. in real terms.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the growing debate about national funding for education that is taking place. May I ask him to draw attention, in any deliberations that are taking place and any negotiations that he has with local education authorities, to the vagaries of the local formulae and the perverse effects that they can have on many schools in the same local education authority area?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right to highlight not only the possibility of a new funding formula--the Education Select Committee, which he chairs, as I said at a previous Question Time, is doing sterling work on that aspect--but the fact that every local education scheme has its own local management of schools scheme. There are 109 different schemes, and within those schemes there is significant scope for education authorities to reflect the different needs of the schools that remain under their control.

Mr. Bryan Davies: During this period, when local authorities have suffered so much from the savagery of cuts inflicted by the Government's failure fully to fund the teachers' pay award, were not local authorities consoled by the opinion of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that things might be better next year? What are those assurances worth from a Prime Minister who may be on his way out and a Secretary of State who may be in that uncomfortable position that she has already mentioned this afternoon--in the lurch?

Mr. Squire: I am confident that the Prime Minister will be Prime Minister in two weeks', two months' and two years' time. On the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question-- [Interruption.] --it has been a tight settlement, as the Government have freely conceded, but it is interesting, is it not, that every remaining Conservative education authority funded the teachers' settlement in full--as, in fairness, did several Labour-controlled authorities--and most of the problems came from Liberal Democrat and several Labour-controlled local education authorities.

Grammar Schools

10. Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children are being educated in

Column 678

grammar schools in England; and how many of them are provided with free transport. [29116]

Mr. Forth: In January 1994, the latest year for which data are available, some 118,000 pupils were being educated in selective schools. Information is not available centrally on the number of those pupils being educated in grammar schools and receiving free transport, as that matter is for locally elected, accountable education authorities.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend will be aware that with nearly 31,000 grammar school children in Kent--about one third of all children being educated in Kent--we are particularly anxious about the kind of story coming out of Essex, where a Labour-controlled council has denied free transport to grammar school children. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will do all that he can to protect our children against that kind of envy politics, which make it impossible for children to receive the kind of education that they deserve?

Mr. Forth: We will always discharge our duty, and the Secretary of State in particular is anxious to protect vulnerable pupils from the depredations of local authorities wherever possible. I emphasise that great discretion is given to local education authorities in determining transport arrangements for pupils in their charge. If people decide in a local election to change the complexion of their local authority, it should not surprise them too much if a vindictive authority controlled by the Labour or Liberal party chooses to wreak cheap vengeance on the pupils in its care.

Mr. Jamieson: Does the Minister accept that a local authority could make funding available for parents who want to send their children to a comprehensive school of their choice?

Mr. Forth: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, LEAs have wide discretion in providing transport for the pupils for whom they are responsible. The problem arises when LEAs use that discretion to exercise political leverage over pupils in their care and parents. That is happening in authorities that have passed into Labour control.

School Places, London

11. Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the effect of the Greenwich judgment upon the availability of school places of their choice within their own borough for the children of parents resident in Greater London. [29117]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): The Greenwich judgment removed an artificial restriction on the exercise of parental choice. My right hon. Friend considers that it would be inappropriate to seek a change in the law to overturn its effects.

Mr. Wilkinson: What advice would my hon. Friend give parents in my constituency who are unable to place their children in the secondary school of their choice because children from the neighbouring boroughs of Ealing, Hertfordshire and Harrow are moving into the first-class secondary schools with grant-maintained status in my constituency? As a consequence, parents cannot even place their children in the third school of their

Column 679

choice. Simply increasing money from the funding agency is no solution because there is an optimum size for secondary schools.

Mr. Boswell: While I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in the problems of his constituents, the exercise of choice by parents outwith the borough must be matched with the concerns that he expressed of his constituents within the borough. We do not believe that an artificial distinction determined by geography is the right way to decide the matter. As my hon. Friend implied, it is open to the schools funding agency, in the case of Hillingdon, to bring forward proposals for the expansion of popular schools--where capacity can be provided.

Mr. Gerrard: When will the Minister stop misleading parents into believing that they have a choice of schools? Is not the truth that parents can express a preference but that schools make the choices now? In any case, schools do not have elastic walls. When they are oversubscribed, many parents are left angry and frustrated. Will the Minister start being honest with parents?

Mr. Boswell: As a result of Conservative Government policies, the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party recently exercised his choice as a parent in respect of his own child.

Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that many parents came to live in my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington to take advantage of the excellent education available in the London borough of Sutton provided by grant-maintained schools and local authority schools? Would it not be advantageous and in the interests of local parents if greater weight were given in the school admission procedures of both kinds of schools to parents who live locally?

Mr. Boswell: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern but the funding formula is neutral as between children within and without a borough. We do not feel that it would be appropriate to overturn the Greenwich judgment and to disappoint one set of parents at the expense or preference of another.

Curriculum Reviews

12. Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the experience in other countries of permanent standing bodies to review the school curriculum in key subject areas. [29119]

Mr. Boswell: The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is charged with keeping all aspects of the school curriculum under review. In so doing, it takes account of experience in other countries.

Mr. Timms: I thank the Minister for that response. Is he aware of the growing concern about the effectiveness of the current ad hoc arrangements for curriculum review, not least because those who are undertaking the review are thrown together for a short while and barely have time to get on top of the subject, let alone come up with effective review proposals? Will the Minister comment

Column 680

on the possibility--it is a proposal that is attracting wide support--of introducing standing review committees on the model that has been adopted in other countries?

Mr. Boswell: As for experience in other countries, the SCAA has asked for, and circulated, information from 11 other countries. As for our own arrangements, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have only recently, on the back of an almost unprecedented consultation exercise, revised the national curriculum. He will know also from correspondence from its chief executive that the authority is most anxious to continue dialogue with practitioners and to continue to take their advice.

Mr. Stephen: Even though spending per pupil on education has risen enormously during this Government's life, is my hon. Friend not concerned that far too many children are leaving school with little or no understanding of the basic events of our nation's history? Is it that children are specialising too early? Will he keep the matter under review?

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend will realise that we have recently had a massive revision of the national curriculum to make it slimmed down and more manageable. The teaching of history, especially English history, has featured largely in that review. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that, while we believe that the proper basis for teaching has now been secured, we shall continue to monitor its effects. We share my hon. Friend's determination to ensure higher and more demanding standards of performance.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Minister can review the curriculum all he wants, but Warwickshire is facing larger class sizes and 172 teachers losing their jobs this year, lowering education standards. Does he understand that we shall not see the standards that children deserve in the county that I represent in part?

Mr. Boswell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to remind his constituents that the teacher count in January was 2,500 greater than the year before. I am sure also that he will want to join me in welcoming the reduction in the work load of teachers that has been brought about by the slimming down of the national curriculum.

Free School Transport

13. Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she intends to take to ensure that pupils attending grammar schools continue to qualify for free school transport. [29120]

Mr. Forth: Under section 55 of the Education Act 1944, it is for individual elected, accountable local education authorities to decide whether free transport is necessary to enable a pupil to attend school.

Next Section

Home Page