HL Deb 29 January 1964 vol 254 cc1131-40

3.5 p.m.

LORD SILKIN rose to call attention to the Newsom Report on the education of the average and below average child; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: A few weeks ago your Lordships spent two days discussing the problem of the abler 10 per cent. of young persons and their needs in the field of higher education. The Robbins Report had recently been published and the Government had tumbled over themselves to accept the Report, not only in principle but to a very great extent in detail, and actually issued a White Paper, all within a matter of a couple of weeks.

To-day my Motion deals with another Report, about the majority of young persons between the ages of 13 and 16 of average or less than average ability. Apparently this is a rather less exciting Report than the Robbins Report, but I am glad to find that we have a considerable number of speakers on the list, and although we may not take two days over it we shall probably be sitting rather late. The Government have published no White Paper and we shall listen with great interest to what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has to tell us about Government policy. From many points of view I should have thought that it might have been desirable to have discussed both the Robbins and the Newsom Reports together, and I was at one time tempted to put down a Motion for the Newsom Report to be discussed at the same time as the Robbins Report. I realise that we should probably have had an untidy debate; on the other hand, it would have emphasised the fact that most of us would like to make quite clear that education must be looked at as a whole and not in watertight com- partments. I hope when we come to discuss this Report we shall look on it simply as one stage in the education of young persons; that is to say, the stage between the ages of 13 and 16. It may be that if we had discussed this matter at the same time as the Robbins Report we should have had an earlier announcement from the Government about their intentions on raising the school-leaving age.

I am sure most people regard the education of the average and below average child—constituting more than one half of the child population—as at least as important as that of the 10 per cent. of the abler children. I need hardly point out that our welfare and prosperity as a nation depend on the whole of our population and not merely on the small section which will get the benefit of higher education. Without a firm and satisfactory basis or groundwork of education for the ordinary child we cannot build an adequate, workable system of higher education.

The Newsom Report discusses at an early stage the question of what is meant by "the average child". The Committee point out that this is not a fixed description; it is purely relative. They make the very interesting point that the standard indicated by "average" is rising all the time, perhaps never more rapidly than in the last 25 years. They point out that a score in a test designed to show the pupil's capacity to read with understanding which even fourteen years ago would have been good enough to put the pupil well into the above-average category, would to-day put him firmly into the below-average category. They record that, broadly speaking, the standard to-day is between 18 and 24 months above what it was in that period. I am sure the noble Earl will be quick to make the point that I am speaking of a period during which the noble Lords opposite have been in office. I hope they will not take too much credit for this raising of the standard of intelligence, although if it is due to them they are very welcome to the credit for it. But the fact is that the standard has been rising, not merely in the past 14 years but in the past 25 years.

I should like at this stage to express my gratitude, and I am sure the gratitude of the whole House, to the Newsom Committee for the remarkable and valuable Report they have produced and all the other detailed and inspiring work which they have done over a period of two and a half years. Thanks are particularly due to the Chairman of that Committee, Mr. Newsom, and to its first Chairman, Lord Amory. He, unfortunately, was able to act for only a few months, but I am sure that in the early days he must have given the Committee the inspiration they have shown in the work which they did for the remainder of their term of life. I am sure it is a great satisfaction to all of us that the noble Viscount will be speaking in the course of the debate.

I propose to deal with the Report largely in a non-Party spirit and, so far as I can, non-controversially. Indeed, the only possible controversial subject that I could find in the Report, was the recommendation relating to the raising of the school-leaving age; and even that little bit of controversy has disappeared since last month, because the Government have now announced their decision to raise the school-leaving age to 16 in the school year 1970–71. This is, of course, two years later than the last date recommended by the Crowther Committee, and a year later than the Newsom Committee recommended, but it is an improvement on the attitude of the Government earlier, when they refused to name any date on which they could make this announcement. I think, looking back, that it is a pity it was not possible to announce this decision two or three years ago, because it means, in practice, that about 350,000 young people will be deprived of the opportunity of a longer education over a period of at least two years, and possibly more. In other words, something like a million children would have been able to attend school up to 16, if the Government had made up their minds earlier than this.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Is it not the case that the children have the option of staying on? The change will be that they will be forced to stay on. Surely, these children have had the option of staying on at school if they wanted to, or if their parents wanted them to.

LORD SILKIN

Of course they have had the option of staying on. But the point is that we wanted proper preparations for all children, and particularly for those who will most benefit, who usually do not stay on.

We must recognise, however, that, belated as the Government's decision is (I do not know whether the noble Lady is speaking in the debate; if she is, I shall be interested to hear her views about the raising of the school-leaving age, since she evidently takes a rather different view) it will not be acceptable to everybody, and apparently not to the noble Lady. In a leading article yesterday The Times set out some of the objections and difficulties, though it came to the conclusion, perhaps rather hesitantly, that the decision to raise the school-leaving age was, on the whole, right. In view of doubts that may arise, however, I thought it might be worth while to set out briefly the case as I see it, and as the Newsom Committee and the Crowther Committee saw it, for raising the school-leaving age to 16. I say that because I recognise that there is a school of thought which still takes the view that whether or not children remain at school a year longer should be optional on the part of young persons, or their parents. I may say, in passing, that the same view was taken in 1948, when the school-leaving age was raised from 14 to 15.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE)

It was 1947.

LORD SILKIN

I beg your Lordships' pardon: 1947. At any rate, we mean the same thing. There were just those doubts expressed at that time: whether we should not leave it to those young people who wish to attend school for a year longer to do so, and not compel the rest.

The case for the raising of the school-leaving age is a twofold one. On the one hand, it is in the interests of the young people themselves. It is necessary that they should be more adequately equipped for life; for the life they will be leading, after their school days are ended, as workers, as citizens, and as human beings in their personal life. Fifteen is a quite inadequate age: they have left behind their childhood, they have not yet become adult, and they need—particularly those who are of less than average ability—this extra year at school. It is, of course, incontestable that the wise and responsible parent would not dream of taking his child away from school at the age of 15, whatever the ability of that child might be; and I would say that that was particularly so if the child was of less than average ability.

At 15 most young people are quite unfit to go out into life. Moreover, with the right educational help they can achieve still more than the progress which has been made in the last 20 years. The Report itself says that, In human justice and in economic self-interest we ought as a country to provide that help But there is also the point of view of the community, and from that point of view it is essential that young people should get the best possible education if we are to maintain our place in the world. There is a greater and greater need for skill; the number of unskilled jobs is declining; the progress of automation and other technological developments will mean a rise in the level of skill. In the White Paper on Industrial Training it was recognised that the number of new entrants to skilled occupations is not sufficient for our future needs. So that both from the personal point of view and from the point of view of the community, it is essential that the school-leaving age should be raised. I think it is right that that point should be made, in case this Government, or any other Government, change their mind hereafter and decide to go back to the voluntary principle.

But, my Lords, it is not enough to raise the school-leaving age, if we are going to provide the same kind of education for them in the last year as we have done hitherto. The increase in the school-leaving age must be acceptable to both the parents and the pupils, as well as to the country as a whole—which, after all, will be incurring a very heavy financial burden. In some cases the parents will be involved in financial sacrifice. This is a side point, but perhaps the noble Earl can tell us whether the question of children's allowances has been considered in relation to the increase in the school-leaving age.

The Report makes a large number of detailed suggestions and proposals as to how the extra year at school should be used. It makes far too many for me to deal with them in any detail in this debate, but I should like to refer to one or two. One is that all schools should provide a choice of programme, including a range of courses broadly relating to occupational interest, for pupils in the fourth and fifth years of the five-year course; that is, between the ages of 11 and 16. I should emphasise that I am talking here not of the grammar schools but of the secondary modern schools. They are the schools which, by and large, will be the ones that the children of average and below average ability will attend. The Report suggests that there should be provision for handicrafts of various kinds for boys, and biology, domestic service and other practical studies for girls. It says that there should he workshop and technical facilities provided either wholly in the schools themselves or jointly with other educational institutions, or possibly, if it can be arranged with the association of local employers, at their works.

Of course, some of this is being done to-day, but these are some of the recommendations that the Newsom Committee make which they hope will be of general application. In short, the final two years should surely be an initiation into the adult world of work and leisure and, I would add, the administration and government of our country. I would stress this latter point, which is not in the Report. I think that these last two years at school, between the ages of 14 and 16, give young people an opportunity of knowing about what their town hall and county hall are doing. They should be encouraged to discuss the work done in these places, and to visit them. They should know about such things as pay-as-you-earn, rates, income tax, housing and all the other services carried out by local authorities; and they should wherever possible be given some idea about Parliament and what it does, the making of laws and their enforcement. It can be made very simple and interesting. I remember, if I may indulge in a reminiscence, when I was at school that at the age of 14 we had a mock parliament, and there was great enthusiasm among the boys to belong to it. In due course, I am proud to say, I attained a position which I have never been able to attain since. I became Home Secretary in a Liberal Government! But it was of invaluable experience to all of us, and it was a fascinating and interesting way of learning about the administration of our country. If it had been done in the form of lessons no doubt it would not have been so fascinating; but it was done outside school hours, and we were never short of a quorum at our meetings.

The Report also recommends positive guidance to adolescent boys and girls on sexual behaviour, including the biological, moral, social and personal aspects; and I think that is something which is very important provided that you get the right kind of teacher. Boys and girls in their last years at school are well on the way to becoming adults. They should know what sort of a world they are going to live in, in all its aspects. Generally speaking, more time will be required for the pupils at school, and the Report recommends homework for all and a lengthening of the school day so as to approach more nearly the normal working day with which the pupils will be faced very soon. I must say that it has to be recognised that many school children are doing part-time work before or after school hours—boys are doing work such as newspaper delivery, and girls a good deal of work at home or outside—and it may not always be practicable. Furthermore, it may not always be possible for those living in the heart of the country to stay at school longer, but this is a recommendation which ought to be taken into serious consideration.

One of the defects which the Committee found almost universally among the children which are dealt with in this Report—and they refer to it over and over again—is the lack of ability to express themselves clearly. This, perhaps, accounts very largely for their being below average ability—or, as I should prefer to put it, below average attainment. I think the ability to do so is vital, and should be specially dealt with in the course of the last two years of education. I have already suggested discussion groups and debates, and reports on visits or on books or articles that they have read, indeed, anything that will help the pupils to formulate in words what is in their own minds. I would say, in passing, that it may well he that teachers themselves are not always the best people to set an example in clarity of expression. I have known teachers who talk far above the heads of their pupils and make it very difficult for their pupils to follow what they are saying. I wonder whether enough stress is laid on the ability of the teacher to speak in simple language and make himself clear to his pupils, especially those of average or below average attainment. I am a little surprised that the Report itself makes no reference to that, because I cannot help thinking that some of the fault may lie at the hands of the teachers themselves.

My Lords, what I have tried to emphasise so far is that we are not advocating—and the Report does not—merely an extra year's education, but an entirely different idea of what should be provided in the last two years of education. It will involve schools where provision will have to be made for teaching practical subjects, workshops, science laboratories and libraries; it will involve a new look in the training of teachers and in their quality and status; and it will require a great deal of thought and research, which the Committee emphasises, and in which I hope teachers and educationalists generally will be fully consulted.

Of course, there will be many problems to be dealt with in the intervening years, and I am not complaining that, following the announcement of raising the school-leaving age to 16, we have to wait until 1970–71. In so far as I am making any complaint, it is that the announcement should have been made two or three years ago. I hope I am not depriving the noble Earl of one of his points in reply, but I fully recognise that it will take a long time to make the necessary preparations, and I should not like this step to be taken in a hurry or to set it off in a "half-baked" manner. I think that when we do make a start on raising the school-leaving age the accommodation should be available and the teachers should be available.

We shall need a large number of extra teachers; and we must start now. Sir Edward Boyle, who spoke in the debate in another place on Monday, was quite confident that the school buildings or the extra accommodation would be available. At least one extra class will be needed in a school to accommodate the extra year, and I think an extra 20,000 teachers will be needed. He was quite sure that they also could be made available if they are given the time up to 1970–71, although he recognised that there might be some overcrowding and we might have to endure the over-large classes in the primary schools for a certain amount of time. My Lords, the training of extra teachers, which will be essential, is not enough. We have to get the right quality of teacher and teachers of the right status. I recognise that we have taken a big step in creating status by encouraging teachers to take degrees; and we are getting more and more teachers with either honours degrees or pass degrees in the schools. But we have got to increase the status of the teacher. I am afraid that even to-day the teacher is regarded as somebody who is not quite up to going into any other profession. I should like to see him being able to face his colleagues in other professions on equal terms. This will involve at least equal remuneration. I hope the Government realise that that is essential if we are going to get the full benefit out of our educational system.

Also, it is not sufficient merely to get the teachers; we have to encourage them to go to the more difficult areas, the slum areas, the overcrowded areas, the areas which are less attractive to live in; and we must get them to go to areas where the children themselves are difficult. As the Report pointed out, the turnover of teachers in these particular areas is very high indeed; it is something like one a year, so in the course of three years, one might have three different teachers. The Report discussed the question of incentives, financial or other, to teachers to encourage them to go to these difficult areas and to stay there. It is, of course, very important that we should get continuity. I hope that between now and 1970ߝ71 we shall be wise in making the fullest preparations for the step that is being taken. We may have to advance the school building programme; we may have to increase facilities for training teachers and, as I have said, for making the profession more attractive. But we have got to do a great deal of thinking in between. We must make quite sure that we use this extra year in the wisest possible way. We must be ready for what we are to do when the time comes.

This will be a most momentous step in the history of education and, as was said in the course of the debate last Monday in another place, it will not stop at secondary education or at the age of 16. Many pupils who will be staying on up to 16 years of age as a result of the raising of the school-leaving age will want to stay on voluntarily for another year or two. They may therefore be encouraged to go in for higher education, and it will mean an increase in the demand for higher education which, in my view, will be all to the good, whether it be academic or technological. We welcome and encourage this, and I am sure that by doing so we shall be rewarded by people becoming more civilised, more cultured, better able to enjoy the leisure which the introduction of automation is bound to bring, and better equipped for raising still further our standard of living. I beg to move for Papers.