| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you have been following the debate very carefully. I was always brought up to believe that there was something called tedious repetition. I am sure that you will assist the House if it comes about.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is for the Chair to decide.
Mr. Gunnell: The reason why we have spent so much time debating class size is that we consider that it is very important. It is clear to the public that one of the messages on education that the Labour party has sought to get across is that the start that children get is fundamental to their continued progress in the system. There is no doubt that pupil performance is affected by class size. I look forward to the Minister demonstrating that it is not.
Mr. Forth: We have come to recognise that Labour Members believe that, if they peddle a shibboleth often enough, people might begin to believe it. I shall explain why not all parents seem to have been persuaded of the much-repeated shibboleth about class size, and I shall name names. Before I do so, I note that, at the very least, we have seen Labour Members backing off from some of the wilder claims that they used to make on the subject. The wording of the new clause is modest, to put it mildly.
Labour Members are saying that there will be a determination of targets for maximum numbers of pupils in classes and that
Mr. Kilfoyle:
I am sure that the Minister will go on to give us a very full list of authorities that--he will allege--have misspent their funding. I refer him to Subsection (2) of the new clause, which says specifically that any
28 Jan 1997 : Column 202
Mr. Forth:
If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to subvert the long-established principle that, as we have always recognised, elected, accountable LEAs should make their own decisions on their priorities or that schools should make their own decisions on how they spend their money--whether on more teachers, buildings, books, equipment, or whatever--it marks a significant departure for Labour Members.
The new clause contains the implication--if not the certainty--that Labour Members now believe that they know, class by class throughout the nation, how many pupils should sit in front of a teacher in a classroom, the better to be taught. That is such a significant departure from what we have heard in the past that I suspect that some Labour Members may not be prepared to support it. I am sure that most of my hon. Friends would not, either.
Under pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said that he believes that, if the assisted places scheme were abolished at some unspecified time during the period of office of the next Labour Government, some progress may begin to be made on some reduction in the numbers in some classes. I paraphrase his words only slightly.
That is perhaps a more honest statement than those of the past. The implication in the past was that, if one abolished the assisted places scheme, the alleged problem of oversized classes would be resolved. Now we are hearing a rather clearer idea that, since there would not be anything like enough the money that was needed as a result of the scheme's abolition, Labour could not in any case meet the target.
The only correction that I would make to the figures given in the very useful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is that, according to my figures, the abolition of the assisted places scheme would provide one extra teacher for every 90 schools. That provides some idea of how useless it would be to abolish the scheme.
The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) challenged me on the subject of research. Professor Mortimore--from no less than the university of London institute of education--has said that the impact of class size on education quality is
Time and again, we have heard from Labour Members that parents believe that smaller classes provide better education. I shall cite two pieces of evidence that I believe contradict that oft-repeated statement.
First, we know that parents who have a choice of school for their children prefer that they attend a popular school that provides an excellent education, even if it is over-subscribed and the choice means that their children
28 Jan 1997 : Column 203
Labour Members should think carefully about the second piece of evidence. They seem to be insulting the intelligence of the Leader of the Opposition, and challenging the wisdom of his parental choice. As the House will know, class sizes in Islington--the borough in which he did not choose to educate his child--are smaller than those at the London Oratory school, which he did choose. If Labour Members require any evidence that parental choice contradicts their entire argument, they need only ask their own leader. I invite them to do so, and I invite the House to reject new clause 12.
Mr. Kilfoyle:
I was quite taken by the Minister's Freudian slip about the "the next Labour Government"--which will not be long in coming, to put our policies into effect. He was very quick to correct the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) about one teacher for every seven schools, but he made no attempt to correct the figures provided by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who said something very different about the cost of places in the assisted places scheme compared to those in the maintained sector.
In Committee, the Minister dismissed the Tennessee Star research and said that it was inconsequential and covered conditions in America, and in only one American state. He attempted to make the same point by quoting Professor Mortimore, and said that the impact of class size is at best unproven. However, research from the university of London institute of education suggests quite the reverse. The Minister knows that, for every academic prepared to make one argument, it is possible to find another to argue the opposite.
What is the real test on the matter? In his reply, the Minister referred to the real test, which is parental choice and how that choice is exercised. There is no doubt what Conservative Members choose to do. They choose the independent sector, which uses smaller class sizes as one of its strongest selling points.
The Minister is a great advocate of choice and is determined to support parents' choice to opt for the independent sector--I do not disagree with that exercise of choice, for their children; if that is how people choose to spend their money, let them do so--but he is not prepared to offer the same choice to parents who say in overwhelming numbers that they would like smaller classes for their children. They do not have that choice, because places are not provided.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kilfoyle:
No; I am conscious of the time.
Mr. Bruce:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman mentioned me by name and said that I was wrong, but he has not given any figures to substantiate his claim.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is responsible for his own speech, as he knows.
Mr. Kilfoyle:
As for the choice made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), can the
28 Jan 1997 : Column 204
We have repeatedly heard comments--true cant--from Conservative Members about the choices and children of Labour Members. In this debate and in Committee, the Minister has advocated choice. I am surprised that he does not now support the choice made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, who chose the maintained over the independent sector.
The Minister's opening comments on the wording of new clause 12 were not critical but damned with faint praise. He said that, compared with previous comments made by Labour Members, the wording is "modest". If it is so modest, I am sure that the Government will find it in their heart to support it--to ensure that parents can choose smaller class sizes, which they so evidently want.
"The Secretary of State may make grants to local education authorities for the purposes of"
reducing numbers. They omit to point out that, unless they propose to change the whole system of education funding, giving an LEA money does not guarantee that it will spend it on the named objective. We can all think of many LEAs that have not spent their education money in anything like the way that was intended.
"at best not clear cut and at worst contradictory".
The American research that he quoted is equally contradictory. Not only could the Americans not sustain the very small class sizes in their pilot projects--I know of no evidence that they have done so statewide, let alone nationwide--but they believe that other forms of intervention are generally much more likely to be cost-effective.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |