|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: The Tories seem to think
they've been offered an open goal by the Labour attack on privilege in
Britain and in the past few days they've been doing their best to take
advantage of it. But both main parties agree that state schools are not
good enough, now the Tories are coming up with some new proposals of their
own to improve them. But is the Tory approach really all that different
from the government's? The Shadow Education Secretary is Theresa May.
Good afternoon.
THERESA MAY: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: Can I remind you of what
John Major said, in order to establish that there actually isn't any difference
between you, there's no point in you quarrelling with the government's
attempts to level the playing field in education because here's what Mr.
Major said, and he said this only a few years ago when he was Prime Minister
"In the game of life we Tories should even up the rules, give people opportunity
and choice, open up an avenue of hope in their lives, I don't mean some
people, I mean everyone, opportunity for all, it's in the bloodstream of
our party" - well that is precisely what the government is saying, it's
what Margaret Beckett said half-a-dozen times, sitting in that very seat,
ten-minutes ago, opportunity for all.
MAY: The hallmark of this
government is that what they say and what they actually do is always different.
And that's no different in education. What we see from the government
is they may talk about opportunity for all, they may talk about choice,
but actually they are the party that is cutting opportunity and reducing
choice. And what I think is most damaging about what Gordon Brown and
indeed John Prescott have been doing in relation to our leading universities,
is that actually they are giving a message, don't bother, it's not worth
it, if you're from a state school there are barriers there that are going
to be put in your place, which is so far from the truth, that universities
have been doing a very great deal to encourage state schools to apply,
state school pupils to apply. The real problem is that we still haven't
got enough state school pupils applying to our leading universities.
HUMPHRYS: But you had eighteen
years to get more of them into Oxbridge.
MAY: And indeed we increased
the numbers of young people in this country going into university from
one in eight to one in three. They had enormous success in actually encouraging
young people to go into higher education and indeed in the leading universities,
Oxford and Cambridge, and other leading universities, the number of state
pupils being accepted, the number of state, the proportion of state pupils
has actually increased, but there is a problem in our, in many of our secondary
schools, of expectations, and it's Labour that over the years has been
in the business of levelling down expectations, rather than raising them,
and of taking away opportunities.
HUMPHRYS: But I was talking about
pupils from state comprehensives going to the so called elite universities.
That didn't go up during your time.
MAY: The number of pupils
from the state, from the state sector, who are going to leading universities,
has increased over the years, as the universities themselves have been
making every effort to encourage state pupils to go into those universities,
but there is still an issue about ensuring that pupils from our state schools
apply to go into the universities, and if you look at just the Oxford figures,
for example, you see that the percentage of students of eligible age applying
to, to Oxford from the maintained sector is about one per cent whereas
from the independent sector it's over four-and-a-half per cent, so that,
you know, that's the issue, it's expectations in the state system that
have been driven down by the Labour Party over the years.
HUMPHRYS: But, again, you had the
opportunity to do that as well, I mean to get more children from comprehensives
into those posh universities, and it didn't happen.
MAY: We have been getting
more children from comprehensives into the leading universities, and the
universities have been working very hard at doing that. But I think there
is going to be a real problem, in the next, in the short term, as a result
of what government ministers have been doing. Because they have been giving
a message that there are barriers there, that there aren't, what is happening,
and we've seen it today, there are reports already, that Cambridge has
been finding state school pupils ringing up and saying that they are not
going to bother to apply now. That's the real damage that Gordon Brown
has been doing, far from opening opportunities, he has actually been giving
a message that he's closing down opportunities.
HUMPHRYS: Well, they'd argue with
that of course, and what they would say is one of things we want to do
is improve the standard of our schools, clearly, everybody agrees that
that ought to happen. Now one of the ways they want to do it is to give
schools the opportunity to run themselves more completely than they are
doing at the moment, to get rid of the LEA's, in effect, not to get rid
of them, but to give schools more powers, exactly the same as you. You
made a speech last night laying out the way you see the education system
changing in this country, the Tory vision, no difference, effectively no
difference here at all between you and them.
MAY: There's a very great
deal of difference actually. The rhetoric that the government is using
talks about freedom for schools, it talks about getting money into schools,
but if you look in the detail of what they are proposing, actually the
reality is very different. We genuinely want to make schools free, and
give them the freedom to have all of the money to spend on what is going
on in their schools....
HUMPHRYS: ....all of it?
MAY: ....well, the government
say they are going to have eighty-five p in the pound, in the future eighty-five
p in the pound will go to the schools. I want to make sure that every
pound spent on schools is a pound spent in schools. I think schools should
have the money and have the power to decide how to spend it because they
know best what's in the interest of their pupils.
HUMPHRYS: Mm. So all their twenty-one
billion at the moment that goes to the system as it were, if we include
schools and LEA's and all the rest of it. All of that would go to the
schools.
MAY: There is too much
money in the system at the moment that is being spent on bureaucracy, not
just at local authority level, but also at central government level as
well, and this government has massively increased the amount of bureaucracy,
the number of people who have had to be employed in order to cope with
government plans, government circulars, all of this red tape, which the
government's own better regulation task force has told us is distracting
people from the job of raising standards.
HUMPHRYS: ...so the answer to that
on
MAY: ....there's money
there that's being spent on the wrong thing, it's not being spent in schools,
I want to see it being spent in schools.
HUMPHRYS: Right, so the answer
to my question was yes, all of that money, all of that money will go to
the schools, will it?
MAY: I want to see money
that is currently being spent on needless bureaucracy going into the schools,
I want to see every pound spent on schools, being a pound spent in schools.
HUMPHRYS: ....well I hear your
rhetoric, when you were accusing the government of rhetoric a moment ago,
and that's a very nice phrase, all of the money being spent in schools
go, go on schools, going into schools, fine, lovely phrase, but what does
it mean in practice? Does it mean, I repeat the question, that all of
that money, all of it, will go to the schools?
MAY: What it means is that
all the money at the moment that is being spent on the schools should be
spent in the schools, rather than....
HUMPHRYS: ....and on local ......
MAY: .....rather than money,
that is currently being spent, supposed to be spent on schools, but is
being held back at the centre, it's being held back in bureaucracy.
HUMPHRYS: ....well, precisely the
view that....
MAY: ....and not going
to ......no well this isn't the view of the government.....
HUMPHRYS: ....well, tell me, let
me try and help the audience here, because I imagine one or two people
may be a little bit puzzled by this. At the moment, a certain amount of
money goes to schools, certain amount of money goes to local education
authorities, are you saying that in future, no money will go to Local Education
Authorities, but all of the money will go to the schools. I mean, that's
a very straight-forward question, isn't it?
MAY: At the moment, what
happens is that money goes to Local Education Authorities and they decide
how much money is then going to be spent on the schools. Money is held
back at those Education Authorities, and is held back initially at Central
Government as well, for them to decide how it should be spent. I want
that money to be actually in the schools, for the schools to decide how
it should be spent.....
HUMPHRYS: ....all of it?
MAY: ....and I believe
that money that is current, there is money currently in Local Education
Authorities that is being spent needlessly on bureaucracy that should be
actually going into the schools. I want schools to have greater powers,
for example on admissions policy......
HUMPHRYS: ....fine....
MAY: ....on exclusions
policy....
HUMPHRYS: ....we'll come to that
in a moment if we may, please....
MAY: ....be able to deciding
what they do for themselves.....
HUMPHRYS: ....I would love to cover
that but I would like with the money for the moment, as you said, David
Blunkett talks about eighty-five per cent up from whatever it is at the
moment, seventy-five per cent, eight per cent at the moment, are you saying
under you system, that would be one-hundred per cent?
MAY: What I'm saying is
that I want every pound spent on schools to be a pound spent in schools
(both speaking at once) What we've set out in our free schools policy
- this is about giving schools freedom, it's about getting money to the
schools and giving them the power to spend it as they think fit not on
government priorities but on the schools' priorities for the children in
their classroom. Well if you'd just wait a minute John and let me say
what I wanted to say......
HUMPHRYS: I've asked you a couple
of times now........
MAY: There will, under
free schools, there will still be some functions that a local authority
will undertake in education. For example, we're looking at the statementing
process for special educational needs. But money that should... that is
being spent on the schools should be being spent in the schools and the
schools should have the power to spend that money in the way that they
think is right for pupils in their classrooms and they should have power,
as I say, on other things as well like....... exclusions policy.
HUMPHRYS: We'll come to that but
just to finish this point then because I'm not getting very much further
with it I suspect. What this is is an argument about the proportion of
money that goes to the schools from the LEA's rather than what you've actually
been suggesting to me which is all of it going in - it's a question of
degree isn't it, so there may be slight difference between you and the
government but it's a question of degree rather than you saying one thing
absolutely clearly - in future, all the money is going to the schools.
You're not really saying that at all are you?
MAY: David Blunkett is
changing the schools. What I'm saying is that money in education that's
due to be spent on schools should be spent in schools, it should go to
the schools and they should have the power as to how it is spent rather
than what David Blunkett is proposing which is still holding back money
not just at local authority level but at central government level and deciding
at Whitehall how it should be spent on our schools.
HUMPHRYS: Our problem is we still
don't know how much you would hold back but there we are, we will see perhaps
one day. Anyway - grammar schools: let's have a look at that. Again
your policy, just the same as the Labour party in practicals. They don't
like them but they won't get rid of those relatively few that remain.
You like them but that's meaningless because you're not going to create
any more. No difference between you two is there really?
MAY: There's a very great
deal of difference between the Labour party which is working to try to
get rid of the remaining grammar schools and which has had a vendetta against
grammar schools for many decades now and a Conservative party that is saying
- these schools do well, parents want to see these schools retained and
we believe those schools should be retained.
HUMPHRYS: But we won't have any
more of them?
MAY: Well, under our free
schools policy, schools will have freedom over admissions policy and it
will be possible for schools to choose to be selective if they wish to
do so.
HUMPHRYS: Hm. But we won't have
any more of them?
MAY: I've just said that
schools under free schools policy will have the power to choose their admissions
policy and to choose to be selective if they wish to do so and to choose
to be academically selective or to select pupils on other basis if for
example they want to have a particular ethos in the school and want to
be able to insure that pupils will maintain that ethos.
HUMPHRYS: So we might end up then
after five years of a Labour government with many many many.... Of a Tory
government, with many many many more grammar schools. Is that what you're
telling me?
MAY: What I'm saying is
that if we give schools the freedom to determine their admissions policy
we may very well see some schools choosing to become academically selective
- in other words to become grammar schools. Other schools, I think, will
choose to go down a different route. Other schools will actively wish
to maintain a fully comprehensive intake. Some schools as I say may wish
to emphasise perhaps the religious nature of the school or a particular
ethos that they wish or have a specialism. What I want to see is diversity
in the system.
HUMPHRYS: So that any school that
wanted to become a grammar school and obviously had the support of people
in the area and all that, you would say - 'Fine, go ahead and do it'?
MAY: We believe that schools
should have the freedom to determine their admissions policy and as I say
I believe that that would actually lead to a greater diversity in our education
system and diversity will enable parents to have greater choice and that's
what I think is so important, parents having choice.
HUMPHRYS: I started this interview
suggesting there was little difference between you. This is a very very
significant difference isn't it because we could end up in this case after
five years of a Tory government, ten years of a Tory government with the
return to the status quo, I mean that's to say the post war status quo.
We could have a massive number of grammar schools in Britain and a diminishing
number of comprehensives couldn't we?
MAY: The freedom would
be there for schools to determine their own admissions policy and it may
well be as I say that some will choose to do that on an academically selective
basis - i.e. that new grammar schools will indeed be created. This government
is trying to get rid of the grammar schools although we see today that
they're suggesting that actually that the comprehensive system hasn't worked
in the way that people thought it was going to work. What's important
I think in education is making sure that we get the education which is
right for every child and I think it is important to ensure that those
children who have academic abilities have those abilities nurtured and
developed and that they are encouraged to go on to reach to their best,
to aspire to our leading universities. I also think it's important that
for those children who are not academically able that we also provide an
equally valued route through education be it a route, for example, that
is based on more technical, skills based, or vocational based education.
I think that's something we've actually missed out on for too long and
it's important that we do ensure that that is in place as well.
HUMPHRYS: Let's look at some of
the children who tend to end up at the very bottom of the heap those who
often end up because they're violent or whatever reason it may be, they
end up being excluded and see whether there is any difference between you
and the government here. You want to give head teachers the power to exclude
children as they will, as they think fit and proper. But again, it appears
that you're behind the government here because it is moving ahead already
and you've come in behind it because the government seems now to be moving
to that position.
MAY: Not at all. The government
has targets for schools to reduce exclusions and they fine the schools
if they don't meet those targets or if they exclude beyond their target.
So what that is meaning in reality in schools, what I'm told not just
by heads, not just by governors and parents but by pupils in schools as
well is that disruptive pupils are being kept in the classroom disrupting
the education of others. So what we see under this government is that
the education of the many is being damaged by the behaviour of the few.
HUMPHRYS: What the government is
doing is setting up what they call LSU's, learning support units I think
you call them - sin bins so at least they know, they seem to have a clear
policy as to what they will do with those children who are excluded. What
would you do with them?
MAY: Well can I just comment
first on what the government is proposing? It's David Blunkett I think
who first used, I'm right in saying, first used the term 'sin bins', it
wasn't our term, but the sin bins or the learning support units that they
say they're setting up are actually in the schools,. So what he's doing
is a very, if you like, is trying to insure that the numbers excluded from
the schools are reduced by excluding them from within the school.
HUMPHRYS: So what would you do?
MAY: What actually happens
is that those disruptive pupils can still disrupt the education of others
just by physically being in the school. What we want to do is to insure
that they're giving a proper education away from the site but we also want
to set up centres that work with pupils before they are excluded when they're
at risk of exclusion to insure they don't reach that point in the first
place.
HUMPHRYS: Teresa May, thank you
very much.
MAY: Thank you.
|