Language Training (Wolverhampton) (Hansard, 22 January 1987)

§ Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of language teaching at Colton Hills school at Penn in my constituency. Associated with that is the question whether the Secretary of State for Education and Science should exercise his powers under section 68 of the Education Act 1944 and hold that the compulsory teaching of Punjabi is, in the circumstances, unreasonable.

Colton Hills is a comprehensive school on the edge of my constituency and it serves the ward of Penn. Some 54 per cent. of pupils are of Asian origin. At the beginning of the autumn term, parents of pupils in their first and second years found to their surprise that the pupils were required to attend Punjabi lessons as part of a language awareness course.

A significant minority of the parents objected when they found that the course was compulsory. The question is whether the Secretary of State should hold that the governors of the school and the local education authority acted unreasonably.

I would contend on a wider basis that compulsory attendance at Punjabi lessons is unreasonable. There are several reasons for that. Teaching Punjabi in Britain, or England, does not help pupils to understand or work in the English community. As you know better than most in the House, Mr. Speaker, Punjabi is not the language of all the Asian people. Punjabi has little practical application for most pupils in England.

As a Tory I draw upon tradition. The tradition of groups in this country, such as the Jews and, in more recent years, the Poles, has been to encourage the teaching of their language and culture in private lessons and not to all pupils in state schools. Forcing white, West Indian and some Asian children to learn Punjabi against their will and against the will of their parents has stirred up resentment against Asians generally.

Once the parents, who realise that the teaching is to be compulsory, hear of it being part of the curriculum of any school, there will be a tendency for those parents to exercise their choice by sending their children to other schools. In the example of Colton Hills school, we shall find that when parents who disapprove of the course are fully aware of its continuance—if the Secretary of State allows it to continue—they will exercise their choice, send their childen to other schools, and, sadly, the percentage of Asian children at Colton Hills will rise above 54 per cent. That can only be to the disadvantage of the Asian children.

The governors and the local education authority at Wolverhampton contend, with massive simplicity, that they have no prejudices. They assert that they are motivated only by a broad benevolence and an open-minded consideration of all the facts.

For my part, I recognise that my views may be wrong and prejudiced. I concede that they may not even be approved of by a minority of other parents. However, the Secretary of State may not be prepared to hold that the teaching of Punjabi, upon a compulsory basis, is generally unreasonable. But I hope that he will look at the special circumstances of the introduction of the course at the 1121 school. I hope that he will hold that the way in which the LEA and these governors have stuffed their apparently liberal, but actually authoritarian, prejudices down the throats of these parents is unreasonable.

If the governors were to initiate the course upon a compulsory basis, they should have prepared the ground with care, but they did not. First, most of the parents were not given a copy of the prospectus. Secondly, the prospectus was ambigious on the question of whether attendance at Punjabi lessons was compulsory. Thirdly, no other attempt was made to prepare the parents and children for that compulsory course. Fourthly, the suggested compromise that the course should be made voluntary for this year only, in view of the failures of preparation, was rejected out of hand.

Fifthly—perhaps this is a wider and more serious point—the objectors to the course were treated with arrogance and abuse. From an early stage they were dismissed as racists, and those who accused them of being racists did not bother to explain what they meant. They merely thought that they would be cowed and frightened by that silly unspecific abuse and that they, the accusers, would be able to assert that they had a superior education and culture.

If it is thought that I exaggerate, I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the way in which the charges that I make were admitted by the chairman of the governors. First, I shall refer to what the chairman of the governors said about the prospectus. In a letter to me, he wrote: I am sure that you are aware that such documents are accurate at the time of writing. Almost always there are variations which are subject to further separate consultation. I hope that Councillor Jones does not get a job in the City—bearing in mind the present climate—because if he did, and if he tried to justify prospectuses in such loose and generous terms, he might find himself either the chairman of a large merchant bank or in Winson Green, but I doubt whether he would find himself anywhere much between those places. Secondly, the chairman of the governors issued a press statement in which he said: Advance communication of the details of the course was not as extensive as the head teacher and governors would have considered ideal. You may recollect, Mr. Speaker, that I, in a spirit of good will, suggested that there was a compromise. Well, that compromise was dismissed without argument. The chairman of the governors said: We feel that any attempt to make part or all of the language awareness course optional would only be damaging to the educational interests of the pupils concerned. We were impertinent enough to ask for further and better particulars of that very general statement. But, of course, it would be too much to expect such important people to give the mere parents further details of their thoughts. They left it at that.

I contend that the governors and the local education authority have acted unreasonably in refusing to allow the course to be voluntary, at least in this academic year. But there are wider and more important issues that I wish to end by referring to. If the Secretary of State does not deal with this issue in a firm and decisive way, the problem will not stop here.

I have not troubled you, Mr. Speaker, and the House with the extensive and damaging literature which has been issued by the Labour group and by the governors of the school. It is obvious from the general philosophical 1122 remarks, which they put forward as though they were self-evident and obvious, that they intend, if they get away with this, to extend these compulsory courses to all the comprehensive schools in Wolverhampton.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will realise that if he allows these parents to be patronised and abused without check or hindrance, it will be seen in Wolverhampton as a signal. It will be the thin end of the wedge. It will be the signal for the general introduction of Punjabi on a compulsory basis in all comprehensive schools in Wolverhampton. All the parents in Wolverhampton demand the Secretary of State's protection from the social engineering which is the hallmark of the dominant and aggressive Labour group in Wolverhampton.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) for drawing this matter to our attention tonight and in the current issue of the Spectator. In the article and again tonight he has made some interesting comments, in his usually lucid way. I know that the case has produced strong feelings, and it might be helpful for the issue to be debated more widely in order that the implications and consequences of actions taken can be understood and noted by others who may wish to go down a similar route.

My hon. Friend has asked the Secretary of State tonight to consider using his powers under section 68 of the Education Act 1944, and my hon. Friend has already written to my right hon. Friend with that request. The Department has been making enquiries of the local education authority and a full reply will be sent to my hon. Friend as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I welcome the opportunity to examine some of the main aspects of the case.

Let me begin by telling the House the circumstances as I understand them. Colton Hills school is a community school. That means that it provides school education for its pupils during the normal school day and offers educational, social and leisure facilities for all members of the community after school, at weekends and in the holidays. One of the benefits of that arrangement is that it should give the school an opportunity to develop closer links with its pupils' parents. That point was made by my hon. Friend tonight and it strikes a chord immediately with me.

One of the benefits of this arrangement is that it ought to give the school an opportunity to develop closer links with its parents. The events to which my hon. Friend referred are not going down that road. The provision of Punjabi lessons at Colton Hills is apparently nothing new. Punjabi is one of the three main modern language options available from the 4th year onwards. The other two are French and German. At this level, none of the languages is compulsory; but of the present 250 fourth year pupils, 50 take French, 47 German and 22 Punjabi. All these languages are available to public examination level at 16-plus. For second and third year pupils, German is compulsory. In the third year, however, some pupils have the opportunity to take a second modern language which may be either French or Punjabi. So the teaching of Punjabi as a voluntary part of the modern languages curriculum is well-established at the school.

1123 How is it, then, that the Punjabi lessons described by my hon. Friend have attracted such anxiety? These lessons were introduced in September of last year. They are part of what is called a "language awareness course" which is being taken by all first year pupils and which is organised in four nine-week modules. Three provide an introduction to a particular language. These are the languages which are offered later as full-time options—French, German and Punjabi. Modules run concurrently and pupils rotate between them; their experience is drawn together in module 4 which considers the structure of language as a whole. For each child, the time devoted to Punjabi is five periods a week over the nine weeks in question.

The course is not an isolated initiative. It is part of a wider programme to improve the teaching of modern languages at Colton Hills. The initiative came from the headmaster, but I understand that he was acting with the full support of the school governors and the local education authority, I understand also that the course will be regularly monitored by LEA inspectors and that the headmaster will make a report to the governors at the end of the summer term.

I should like to comment here on language awareness courses generally. Properly structured, these aim to give pupils both a general introduction to foreign languages and some basic linguistic skills. However, such courses are a fairly recent development and their educational merits are still a matter for debate. The necessary time often has to come from that which is normally devoted to the first foreign language taught and schools need to consider carefully—very carefully—whether this time can be spared without detriment to later studies. Let me emphasise, however, the importance of consulting parents. Education has always been about extending children's experience and deepening their understanding through contact with subjects which may at first be unfamiliar. But, where schools are seeking to change what they teach, they must take the parents with them.

In the present case, it seems that parents were involved only once the course had begun, and this was clearly wrong. Three meetings have taken place since, on 28 October, and on 7 and 25 November. I am told that each attracted a substantial audience, with strong views expressed both for and against. But I believe that much anxiety could have been avoided through better information before term began. The governors have said as much themselves; their statement of 26 November accepts that: mainly due to difficulties associated with the recent teachers' dispute, advance communication of the details of the course was not as extensive as the Headteacher and Governors would have considered ideal. The Governors recognise this and will attempt to ensure that this situation is rectified in future. Then there is the question of the school prospectus. My hon. Friend suggested that it was misleading. It is true that there was no mention of language awareness courses in the last edition, but the authority tells me that, when this was published in autumn 1985, no firm plans for the course had been made. If that was the case, and knowing that the issue was so very sensitive, it might have been better to consult, to inform and to make the position clearer in the prospectus. Clearly, it would have helped matters enormously if the course had started less precipitously and after it had been promulgated in a changed published prospectus.

1124 My hon. Friend has requested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should intervene, using his powers under section 68 of the Education Act 1944. Section 68 empowers the Secretary of State to act where he is satisfied that any local education authority or the governors of any school have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably in the exercise of any of their functions under the Education Acts. The judicial test of what is unreasonable is very stringent. It has been defined in the courts as conduct such that no sensible authority or governing body, acting with due appreciation of its responsibilities, would have decided to adopt.

Within the meaning of section 68, it must be proved that the authority or governors have acted unreasonably. The lessons in question were introduced by the school with the support of the governors and the LEA. Some 220 pupils are involved, but the LEA says that only 12 formal complaints have been made to the school. Clearly, there is room for more than one opinion about the value of the course. I shall write to my hon. Friend about section 68 and his appeal under it.

The governors accept that there was a lack of consultation. For the future, the new Education Act should help to prevent any repetition of the difficulties which have arisen at Colton Hills. Strengthening the links between parents and schools is one of the main planks of the Act. Governing bodies of county, controlled and maintained special schools will be reconstituted to broaden membership. In particular, the number of parent governors will be increased so that parents have equal representation with the LEA. There will also be what for many schools will be a new category of co-opted governor representing the community served by the school. Colton Hills already has both parent and co-opted governors, but the numbers of both will be increased under the new arrangements. The new governing bodies in all county schools must be in place by September 1988.

Furthermore, the Act also requires every governing body to produce an annual report and to hold an annual meeting for parents to discuss it. Parents will be encouraged freely to express their views and to participate with governors in a full and business-like discussion. Therefore, it will be open to parents to raise any matter which concerns them. The first such meeting must be held in schools before the end of the summer term 1987.

The Act also makes curriculum policies much clearer and more open to public scrutiny and debate. LEAs will have to publish their own curriculum policies, and will be clearly accountable to the local electorate for them. Governing bodies in county and controlled schools will also have to establish aims for the curriculum of their school and may, if they wish, modify the LEAs policy in respect of the school.

The headteacher retains under the Act the responsibility for organising any curriculum and securing that it is delivered. He is constrained by the LEA's overall policy, but, if that has been modified, he can choose to follow the governors' modification.

All three partners will be acting under much closer public and parental scrutiny than in the past. The publication of curriculum policies, annual reports from governors to parents and the annual meetings with the parent body will help to ensure that no curriculum policy will be adopted or sustained unless it can be fully justified and commands wide support.

1125 I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and for the robust and clear way in which he delivered his remarks.