| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: I am afraid that time is very limited; otherwise, I should have liked to.
Instead of being distracted by the amendment tabled by the Conservatives, we must understand that changing the education system is difficult, that we need to support schools in raising standards, and that we need to recognise the better accountability that a better-educated society demands and which performance data make possible. However, I hope that Ministers make speedy progress on added value measures. Teachers in inner-city schools would really welcome such measures, as they would show what they are achieving. Finally, we need to build trust within the system. Teachers need not be quite so defensive about their achievements; they have a lot to be proud of.
The whole House will welcome the Learning and Skills Council Bill, because we all know that, in the information age, knowledge and its application will increasingly determine personal and national prosperity. As individuals, we know that education increases our chances of getting and keeping a job and increases our earning power. As a nation, we know that as knowledge and information increasingly become tradeable commodities, those nations best able to harness new technologies will be the most prosperous. I welcome the Bill, not least because it will complete a process that the Conservatives began when they were in government, with the creation of a single Department for Education and Employment. That was welcome. The Bill follows that logic.
It is still the case that far too many young people and adults underachieve. A fifth of 20-year-olds and 7 million adults in this country lack basic skills. As has been said, there is a lack of demand in the system from many of those adults because of their experiences of education.
One price that we have had to pay for a selective system of education in years gone by is that many people have been left with a profound distrust of learning after being put off by their personal experiences. Every day, thousands of people drive through my constituency to jobs in the centre of Leeds, whereas people who live in areas of high unemployment a stone's throw from the city centre are unable to do so because they lack the skills, the qualifications and the aptitude. That is why the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was so wrong about the new deal. It is helping because it gives those people those skills.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford):
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) asked how a Conservative Government would improve standards. We would certainly start by cutting the burden of red tape and reversing the culture of departmental diktat that have been the hallmark of this Government, and especially of the present Secretary of State.
I envisage a bigger role for the private sector in our education system. I do so not because I like seeing companies make a profit, although many companies today do make a profit out of providing services to our education system, but because the private sector represents diversity, flexibility and innovation--the things that we need to give our children if they are to make a success of our economy in the coming decades.
The private sector will offer value for money and wider access to the new technology and the information age. It is precisely because Conservative Governments, in their term in office, created the framework of a national curriculum and created the standard, tested by Ofsted, that we can justify, in today's world, giving money to the private sector to manage some, but not all, of our state schools.
I am very fortunate to represent Guildford, which has the first maintained school in the country to be put out to private sector management. We are already seeing the value for money gains resulting from that process. I visited the school only last week and was told that the initial capital project to improve the school had saved nearly 10 per cent. on cost through reductions in fees and other administrative costs that would have been incurred had the project been carried out by the local education authority.
As a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, I recently visited the United States where we saw many examples in which the private sector, through the charter school movement, offers value for money. In fact, so great is the chance to obtain value for money in the United States that many states require new schools to be funded at only 90 per cent. of the cost of running their state systems--an upfront admission that the private sector can deliver better value for ratepayers and for children.
I visited an advantage school in Jersey City as a guest of the Republican mayor of the city. He told me that it was a new school for more than 500 primary school children and that the intention was to build it up into an education centre serving 1,000 children of all ages. The cost of providing that new school was only two thirds of the cost that would have been incurred by Jersey City if it had done the job itself. At the same time, the school was able to provide a free community centre adjoining the site.
The debate is not just about money, although more money for education means more money for teachers, and that would provide for higher-quality teachers and
higher-quality teaching. The debate is, at this stage, also about diversity. We want diversity and flexibility, but I do not think that any one of us today would look to state systems to deliver that for our children. We look to the private sector to provide the imagination and the drive that will deliver more of the benefits of the new technology and the new information age to our classrooms.
We must consider the Government's response to new technologies. Their response has been to offer a new laptop to every head teacher--an offer which was dismissed as patronising by the National Union of Teachers--and it was later discovered that they would have used money that the Chancellor had already promised twice over. When the Government see new developments and new technology, they are dying to brand them with their own name, but they have no idea what they really mean. It is essential to the proper development of education in this country that we have more diversity and flexibility in the system.
More diversity and flexibility will prompt a positive response from other parts of our state system. In Guildford, the other state schools are responding to the challenge of 3Es in running one of our local schools by raising their game and by improving their performance.
I recently had a most interesting meeting about church schools with the director of education for the diocese. In the past, church schools were very hesitant to promote their role, but we all know that the number of parents wanting to send their children to such schools has been rising. At any standard of living, church schools deliver a higher and better result for children than other schools in the state system. However, church schools have felt the strain of being leaders of the pack. We can have more successful church schools in a system in which there are also schools managed by the private sector. Church schools will clearly see their role as being a benchmark of achievement, promoting what they do as some of the best schools in the country and being more confident in their own identity. If the schools are more confident in their own identity, they will be more successful because they will give their children a strong identity. That is something that our children need if they are to succeed in our schools system.
How will that diversity in our schools express itself? Within the framework of our national curriculum, we should be encouraging more diversity in our approaches to special educational needs. On our visit to the United States, some members of our cross-party Committee visited Boston, where we heard of the advantages of a school that treats all children the same, whatever their educational needs. The school has an overall budget that assumes that a certain proportion of its money will be devoted to those children, but the children who have special educational needs can be absorbed into the mainstream as quickly and effectively as possible without the bureaucratic mechanisms that are the hallmark of the Government and the proposals that they outline in their Bill.
It may be that those schools will show diversity in the type of qualifications that they offer. In Guildford, the new Kings college will be offering 16 to 18-year-olds the chance to complete an international baccalaureate as an alternative to A-levels. There may be a choice of reading programmes and strategies for getting the best from our highly able children and for developing strong links with
the independent sector--links that have been denied by the control mentality of the Secretary of State and his minions.
Valerie Davey (Bristol, West):
I, too, want briefly to address two education issues. Like many hon. Members I welcome the special educational needs Bill in the Queen's Speech. It underlines the Government's commitment to improve education for those with special needs and I am sure that it will include a recognition that the partnership between parents, schools and young people needs to be improved. The Bill will reinforce the powers of the special educational needs tribunal, but most important it will strengthen the right of children with special educational needs to continue their education in mainstream schools wherever possible.
Given all that, and the implications of the Learning and Skills Council for those with special educational needs as they progress into further education and, I hope, higher education, this is indeed a Bill that will improve education standards for that group of young people. I was therefore saddened by the Opposition amendment. They have either a very narrow definition of youngsters with special educational needs, or a very narrow definition of standards. Whichever it is, I am disappointed.
Like the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I want to take up the issue of higher education. I, too, was immensely appreciative of the Secretary of State's comments this morning about the involvement of higher education in improving standards throughout the education service, especially in our schools.
On the trip to America with the Education and Employment Committee, I, too, was impressed with university standards and work. We met representatives from four universities: the university of Massachusetts, Harvard, the Northeastern university in Boston and the university of North Carolina. What was impressive was the way in which all those universities, in very different ways, were contributing to their communities and to raising the standards of education in the schools in those communities. In that respect, I believe that we have a great deal to learn, as do our universities.
The summer schools that are advocated for 16 and 17-year-olds to get a flavour of university life are important, and I am sure that the 5,000 young people who take part next year will have an enriching experience. I am concerned, though, about the Government's promise to develop summer universities to involve younger children, between the ages of 10 and 14. At that age, young people need to be inspired and encouraged. In families where further and higher education is not part of the tradition, the children's desire to take part in it must be recognised. Parents must realise that such education is something to which their children can aspire.
I congratulate higher education students--from William Temple onwards--on their contribution over many years to their communities. In Bristol, students support the Barton Hill settlement. The settlement movement throughout the country has made an important
contribution to social well-being, and has challenged young people to aspire to greater educational heights. I thank the students for all their voluntary work and, especially in Bristol, for their involvement in the arts, engaging young people who otherwise would not have become involved in dance and drama. I thank the students for the funds that they raise in rag weeks and--more recently--for their visits to sixth forms, during which, by their involvement, they encourage younger people to participate in further and higher education.
But--and it is a big but--most universities are still not wholeheartedly involved in their communities. When I heard the Secretary of State talk this morning, I was reminded of the New Testament parable of Dives and Lazarus. If we substitute the gold in the parable for knowledge and education, we realise that, in many of our inner cities, there are universities of great wealth that refuse to share with those who pass their gates every day.
As a Government, we have rightly challenged our prestigious universities, including Bristol, to participate more wholeheartedly in our commitment to raising standards in schools. I am sure that that can and will come about, and that inspirational university lecturers may share their understanding with school and college teachers. As a result, young people will regard going from school to college to university as a natural progression.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |