................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 10.11.96
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Whether by accident or
design, education is the big battleground for politicians these days. I'll be
asking Gillian Shephard why our schools are in such turmoil ... and whether her
new measures will really make a difference. That's after the news read by Chris
Lowe.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: Thank you Chris. The new Education Bill
has just been published ... what timing! On the face of it Britain's schools
are in turmoil - one closed down because of a naughty ten year-old....another
handed over to a hit squad of inspectors and a dozen pupils expelled... and
research that says more and more children are being excluded every year. Some
say it's all the teachers' fault ... some blame parents ... others say the
politicians have got it wrong.
The new bill would give schools more
power to select pupils. Opted-out schools would benefit and there'd be new ways
of helping schools tackle bad behaviour. If parents refuse to sign a
home-school agreement for instance the school can refuse to take the child.
Pupils can be kept in after hours without the parents' agreement and schools
can exclude pupils for forty five days in any year.
They can also refuse to take pupils
who've already been excluded from two other schools.
Well, is it all going to work? The
Education Secretary Gillian Shephard is with me. Good afternoon.
GILLIAN SHEPHARD: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: Now, selection and behaviour are both in
the bill. It has been suggested that you might reconsider the priorities, and
you might say that perhaps what we ought to do is, because they are more
controversial, withhold the measures on selection so that, well maybe until
after the next election even, so that we can get through the measures on
behaviour. Are you thinking of that?
SHEPHARD: No. We wouldn't do that, because
everything that we've done over the last seventeen years in education has been
with an eye to pushing up standards, and we've done that by increasing
diversity, by increasing choice, by increasing independence of schools, and
their accountability. And all the things in the bill bolster up those
principles. We actually think that increasing diversity, allowing schools to
have more selective intake if that is what they want, sit alongside pushing up
standards, making schools compete with one another. And the measures that
we've got in to raise standards, like baseline testing, target setting for
schools, also sit alongside that desire to push up standards, and of course,
the measures on discipline are what teachers have asked us to include.
HUMPHRYS: But surely there must be the danger the
increasing selection, giving grant-maintained schools the chance to select half
of all their pupils, and then by the time you've added on their siblings the
following year, or whatever it is, may be eighty per cent of their pupils by
default. Now, that's going to make things worse for schools that are already
failing, and lead to more of the sorts of problems that we've seen in this past
few weeks.
SHEPHARD: Well, of course the evidence actually
proves the reverse. What we are finding in areas for example like South
Birmingham or Salisbury, or Bexley, other parts of Wiltshire and
Buckinghamshire, is that the results of the schools that are non-selective,
that sit alongside selective or grammar schools, actually are improving faster
than those of schools in wholly non-selective areas, so actually the reverse
seems to be the case.
HUMPHRYS: Not the case with Ridings.
SHEPHARD: Well now the Ridings is another case
altogether.....even from the mouth of the Chief Education Officer of Calderdale
it was the LEA that let down the school and also the inspector's report makes
it absolutely clear that that school was under achieving, very very much under
achieving by comparison with schools in similar situations with similar
intakes. You see when you get a school like the Ridings, there are always
people who want to make an excuse for its performance, they will say it's the
system, it's the kind of pupils, it's resources, none of those proved to be the
case, the school was let down by the local education authority - the governors
weren't fulfilling their statutory responsibility, there was a breakdown in
management at the school.
HUMPHRYS: But let's put the experts aside for one
moment and just apply a bit of common sense here, now every parent in the land
will tell you we know which is the better school or schools in our area and
it's common sense, isn't it that if you have one school that is able to cream
off the best, the most able of the pupils then the other school or schools is
or are going to suffer.
SHEPHARD: Well we certainly want to foster
parental choice as much as we can because we believe very strongly that that
choice again is another lever in pushing up the achievements of all schools.
HUMPHRYS: Yes but not all parents by definition
can choose.
SHEPHARD: Now, just a moment. That, also, I think
is commonsense. If schools see other schools doing well, they will naturally
want to compete. It is also the case that all schools can build on particular
strengths - many, many do - and by increasing diversity in the system we want
to encourage them to do that.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah.
SHEPHARD: Different schools do a different task
well for different kinds of pupils.
HUMPHRYS: That's fine if you've got a lot of
schools in an area from which parents can choose, perhaps - though some would
say it isn't fine even in those circumstances. But if you take an area like
Penrith or Ripon, where there are only a couple of schools in each case, one of
them is grant maintained, it's able to cream off all the most able. The other
one, by definition, is going to suffer and that's what they're finding there.
SHEPHARD: But the same truth pertains and it is
this: what makes the quality of a school no matter what its situation is the
quality of the Head and the quality of the teachers and they, I think, are
given an extra spur by the competition of an adjoining school. I mean, if it
was the case-
HUMPHRYS: But you're condemning them to a much
harder struggle aren't you, in effect?
SHEPHARD: If it- Well life is hard I'm afraid and
you know we're looking at the interests of pupils here, not necessarily the
interests of institutions.
HUMPHRYS: Ah that's precisely what I'm talking
about.
SHEPHARD: And pupils I think need to go to schools
that are striving to do their best for individual pupils and I truly believe
that the co-existence of different sorts of schools in the same area actually
provide a spur to make all those schools perform well and that actually is the
evidence we're getting from the areas that I mention.
HUMPHRYS: But you're also accepting therefore that
if by going selective it's tougher for some, then so be it?
SHEPHARD: All schools, I think, can achieve if
they play to their strengths. The other point of course about the Bill is
this, as you will have noticed - you've got a copy of it there - what it isn't
doing is imposing selection on any areas or imposing selection on individual
schools. What it is doing is saying: if schools want to increase the numbers
of children they select into their intake we shall make it easier for them to
do so; if a school wishes to go fully selective we shall make that easier as
well. And you know, I visited a school last week, the Cardinal Vaughan School
which selects ten per cent of its intake on musical ability. They think that
with the provisions of the Bill they might select a slightly larger intake
because they find it enriches the whole of the school. All of this is
diversity and it's choice.
HUMPHRYS: So, you don't accept that selection
leads to more schools failing or more failing schools, but you do accept -
clearly you have in the past - that there is a problem with behaviour. There
are bits in the Bill that deal with that, there are other things that aren't
covered in that, one of those obviously is caning. Now that is something
where the Prime Minister has changed his mind in the last few days. What
caused him to do that?
SHEPHARD: I don't think that you can say that the
Prime Minister changed his mind. The situation-
HUMPHRYS: But, there wasn't going to be a free
vote, now there is going to be a free vote on it, clearly.
SHEPHARD: The situation is absolutely clear and
has been from the start. I made it clear in the now famous radio interview
with you, ten days or so ago and subsequently in the House. I said this: the
Government is bringing forward in the Bill those provisions to help teachers
with discipline that teachers have asked for. Teachers have not asked for a
return of corporal punishment, it will therefore not be in the Bill.
HUMPHRYS: Yes but you didn't say there was going
to be a free vote for MPs did you, that's the point?
SHEPHARD: And, the Government will not be backing
amendments which may well come forward to put corporal punishment in the Bill.
That is what I said and that is not inconsistent of course with backbenchers
being given a free vote and the Government position remaining as it is.
HUMPHRYS: Well, well, but William Hague said on
this programme last week: we are not going to have Government by opinion poll,
we're not going to change our approach. What you have done is change your
approach. There was no question of a free vote on this issue. Now there is.
You've given in in effect to the playground bullies, haven't you?
SHEPHARD: No, this is, I think, really a
misinterpretation and I think you're being rather mischievous -
uncharacteristically so, of course. The fact is that the Government position
remains as it was. We've not got corporal punishment in the Bill, the teachers
have not asked us for it, there is nothing inconsistent at all in saying to
backbenchers: you will have a free vote, you're pulling down amendments. The
Government position remains as it is.
HUMPHRYS: Well, why not make it in that case a
completely free vote and do what Mr Horsley (phon) and others want you to do
and that is let Ministers - the so-called 'payroll vote' - let them decide for
themselves as well.
SHEPHARD: Because the Government position is
perfectly clear. I laid it out in the House, the Government position remains
the same.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah but some people don't accept it.
Even within the Government, there are some people who would rather it went the
other way so why shouldn't they be able to vote?
SHEPHARD: We are putting in the Bill the
provisions that teachers have asked us to put in. They did not ask us to put
in corporal punishment. They did ask us to, for example, give them back the
power to give pupils detention. They asked us to make use of exclusion more
flexible. They asked if possible-
HUMPHRYS: Come to that in a minute if I may.
SHEPHARD: -for appeals panels to take account of
the schools discipline policy, to have the school's interest, other pupils'
interest, represented on the appeals panel and so on. That is what they asked
us for, that is what we are getting.
HUMPHRYS: So you, yourself, will-will quite
happily walk through the anti-caning lobby, in spite of what you have said in
the past.
SHEPHARD: The Government position is exactly as I
said-
HUMPHRYS: Yes, I understand that.
SHEPHARD: - it was ten days ago in the House and
on your famous programme - that is where we are.
HUMPHRYS: And, you will happily walk through the
anti-caning lobby, therefore?
SHEPHARD: I'm a member of the Government and I've
made the Government's position absolutely clear.
HUMPHRYS: But you don't wish to answer the
question as to whether you will happily walk through?
SHEPHARD: I have made the position absolutely
clear.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's look at some other
things then that are not in the Bill. Dress code for teachers.
SHEPHARD: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: Does it worry you that some teachers do
look pretty scruffy to put it mildly?
SHEPHARD: Yes it does and I accept teachers to
look smart because there are such very important role models. I often wonder
whether they realise how important they are to pupils as role models. Maybe
not all of them do. I remember visiting a school in Norwich in the Summer
where frankly all the staff looked as if they had stepped straight out of the
pages of Vogue or whatever - absolutely wonderful and there is no doubt that
those smartly, marvellously dressed young women - were a fabulous role model to
the girls. I was very impressed with that.
HUMPHRYS: What about having a dress code in the
Bill then - or accepting an amendment?
SHEPHARD: We aren't having a dress code again in
the Bill because there is nothing that prevents Governors and Heads already
from laying down the way staff should dress, when they employ them-
HUMPHRYS: And would you encourage them to do that?
SHEPHARD: -in the first place.
HUMPHRYS: Would you encourage them to do that?
SHEPHARD: Certainly we would encourage them to do
that but I don't think that we need a provision in the Bill - although I think
everybody in the country would very much welcome a strong encouragement for
there to be very very good role models, in every respect - as far as teachers
are concerned.
HUMPHRYS: So the message from the Secretary of
State to the teachers is: please, smarten up.
SHEPHARD: Many are already very smart. To the
others, I say: just have a look at yourself and see how the children in the
class look at you.
HUMPHRYS: Maybe some guidelines?
SHEPHARD: No guidelines.
HUMPHRYS: Right. Parent-school contracts. Now,
how do you enforce them. A lot of people say: yes, they make a great deal of
sense; parents ought to get their kids to school on time and all that kind of
thing. But if they don't what do you do about those parents who don't observe
the contract?
SHEPHARD: Look in all of these things there is
always a desire to find the one solution, the perfect solution to the whole
problem of parents who don't want to co-operate, who won't work with the school
authorities - whatever. Home-school agreements are one way of binding parents
in to the Education process. There are a range of others about which I'm very
enthusiastic. In the Bill, we're going to make it possible for schools - who
so wish - to require parents to sign a home-school agreement, as a condition of
admission. Not all schools will want to do that; many do already. It's very
good practice. There's some marvellous practices going on around the country
but it isn't the only thing.
HUMPHRYS: No, but the point is there's no point in
having a contract unless it can be enforced, is there?
SHEPHARD: I call it an agreement, precisely
because I don't think that you can enforce it in that way and you need-
HUMPHRYS: So what's the point?
SHEPHARD: Because many schools will find it an
additional weapon in their armoury, if you like, to get proper co-operation
between themselves and parents and it will help them in their admission
requirements. But, imposing this kind of thing from a great height, I think,
is ineffective and in any case I think, there are many, many other ways of
binding parents in. For example: base line assessment - testing of children at
five when they come into the system - that is another provision in the Bill.
And we are making it absolutely explicit that we want parents to be involved
with that assessment so that they know and the school knows what potential the
school has to work with when the child goes in. But, there's a tranche of
other things that we're doing to get parents in and in particular parents with
the greatest difficulties.
HUMPHRYS: But if, if for instance a parent - a
mother constantly takes her child to school late - ten minutes late, an hour
late, or whatever it is - might you think, perhaps, of saying: well, in that
case, the child must stay on at school an hour longer, or whatever it happens
to be.
SHEPHARD: Well you see these are things for
individual schools to decide-
HUMPHRYS: They get no guidelines then.
SHEPHARD: -at school level. But - and there's
very good practice and certainly we disseminate good practice between schools.
But a home-school agreements would actually - where it was working well -
strenghten the school's hand in that sort of situation. But it has to go
alongside all the other things we're doing and in addition, the discipline
proposals that we're putting forward.
HUMPHRYS: But, that is the kind of thing that
you'd be happy to see schools considering, is it?
SHEPHARD: Well, I certainly want schools to use
all the tools at their disposal, to get the co-operation of parents because, of
course, schools do tremendously well in reinforcing decent standards, in
reinforcing values through what they teach. And, children's education is so
important that parents really must understand - and the vast majority do - that
the very best way to give the child a good start in life is to support the
school in what it's trying to do.
HUMPHRYS: What about saying to the child's mother
or father, for that matter, parents: you must go to school, if assuming things
aren't working out with the child, you must go to school with the child, sit
there alongside the child in the classroom - that kind of thing.
SHEPHARD: Well, I could name you one or two
schools where that is actually happening at the momement and apparently, rather
effectively. But, we also have - and this is - I was thinking of this amongst
other things when I said there was a range of things you can do to bind parents
in - a marvellous pilot, which is called a "The Family Literacy Initiative",
which we are using in some of the most deprived estates in the country, whereby
parents are invited into the school with very young children, that might have
literacy difficulties to help the child to learn and thereby also reskilling
themselves. That binds the parent into the educational process, makes the
parent understand the importance. The parent, herself - it is often the mother
- brushes up her literacy and numeracy and indeed we've had such marvellous
results from this particular approach - seventy per cent of parents going on to
get further qualifications that we are spreading it nationwide. Now, that's
another way of involving parents who, initially, on the face of it might,
perhaps, seem to have particular difficulty.
HUMPHRYS: So, you like the idea of parents in the
classroom, then?
SHEPHARD: There's a lot of ways of getting
parental help in the classroom. That is one way - and a lot of schools I visit
have parents helping in any case.
HUMPHRYS: Now, exclusions: there's been - we're
told, research that's been carried out for your own department - a twenty per
cent increase in the number of exclusions since 1994, in the last couple of
years. The new Bill says that schools can exclude children for forty-five days
in future. That's three times as long as they used to be able to. What is
going to happen to those children then, becasue clearly that's going to put
extra strain on the places that are available for them in special units, or
whatever it has to be.
SHEPHARD: Well that of course, is the key point
and alongside that new flexibility that schools are going to have is a
requirement for Local Educational authorities to set out clearly their policies
for dealing with pupils that have behavioural problems - whether it's in
special units, whether it's being educated at home - whatever.
HUMPHRYS: But you mean closing special units down?
SHEPHARD: We certainly haven't been closing
special units down.
HUMPHRYS: There are fewer of them now and it's
accepted that there are too few of them.
SHEPHARD: There are fewer special schools for
children with learning difficulties...
HUMPHRYS: But also fewer of these units.
SHEPHARD: ...because of the policy of integrating
children with learning difficulties into ordinary classes. But, of course,
Local Education Authorities are going to have to make clear what they plan to
do with the numbers of children that they might have a right to expect to need
this special help.
HUMPHRYS: Will you give them more money to do that
because they'll need it?
SHEPHARD: Well certainly we wouldn't expect to
give them more money. They have money...
HUMPHRYS: How are they going to pay for it?
SHEPHARD: Because they have money. They are
actually resourced to deal with all the children in their care. Now, just let
me come back to the forty-five days point.
HUMPHRYS: Briefly, if you would.
SHEPHARD: Yes, briefly. Schools have asked for
more flexibility because they need to have enough time to do something sensible
with these children and the forty-five days will allow them to plan, to do
something sensible and to make a difference to the children.
HUMPHRYS: There we must end it Gillian Shephard -
thank you very much, indeed.
And that's it for this week. Back to our
normal time next week. For now Good Afternoon.
...oooOooo...
|