HC Deb 18 May 1990 vol 172 cc1190-6

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

2.30 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise such an important subject. When the proposed reorganisation of schools in Kent, particularly in Maidstone, comes before the Minister, my constituents will wish certain criteria to be paramount. They are the maintenance of grammar school places and the size of the schools concerned.

Another matter must also be closely examined. I raise it with specific reference to Kent and Maidstone, but it could affect other authorities that my find themselves in the same position. It relates to the financial mechanism that authorities have to use when they engage in a large-scale reorganisation.

Kent county council decided this week not to go ahead with the proposed closure of Oakwood grammar school or with the reorganisation of other schools in Maidstone until the autumn, when it is to institute a proper review. It will be the third review of Maidstone's secondary education in three years. Two years ago, there was a proposal to close Senacre, Maplesden Noakes and Astor of Hever schools in my constituency. There was a great deal of uncertainty which did them no good. While they were under threat, parents were reluctant to make them their first choice and to send their children to those schools. The threat was removed in the face of an immense outcry by the people of Maidstone who did not want those high schools to be closed.

One of the reasons given for the proposed closures was that school rolls in the area were falling. To some of us that seemed peculiar, in view of the immense amount of development in the south-east—the growth of housing estates and the pressure on the area that is concomitant with the building of the channel tunnel and the rail link. It was difficult to understand how school rolls could be falling. We have been told that now there are more children in the primary schools and that in three or four years' time they will filter through into the secondary schools.

The recent closure proposals, which have not been abandoned but whose consideration has merely been deferred, have brought in their train, once again, uncertainty and blight. The proposals stem from the wholly admirable Kent county council decision to move from selection at 13 to selection at 11. Kent county council has a wide variety of schools—high schools, comprehensives and grammar schools, including those based on the 11-plus system, the 13-transfer system or the Thamesside system, the latter being the least satisfactory.

I am delighted that Kent county council has decided that, in due course, Maidstone will move to selection at 11. But what will happen to the grammar schools? If there is selection at 11, children of 11 and 12 will seek grammar school places. There are only two ways to cope with that extra demand: either the grammar schools must expand to absorb those children, or the authority must cut down on the number of forms of entry.

Many of my constituents and I have been alarmed by the fact that the Kent county council has proposed in recent months to close one of our four major grammar schools—Oakwood boys grammar. When the primary school population is rising and more children will need grammar school places and when, because of a complete change in the system, more grammar school places will be needed anyway, what is the sense in closing a grammar school? The consistent answer has been that the county council can see no sense in closing a grammar school, but it proposed to do so—and may yet propose to do so—because the financial regulations governing secondary education are such that the council does not feel able to keep the school open for three or four years if rolls are falling.

There are smaller schools than Oakwood grammar in the county. When I asked why, if Oakwood could not be kept open, smaller schools could be, I was assured that the only reason was that transfer at 11 was occurring more quickly in those areas and, therefore, the length of time a school would have to be financially unviable was much shorter. Kent county council expressed its problems in this way: Formula funding is based largely on the number of children attending a school. While older children, who pursue more intensive and extensive curriculums, attract more money any school must make sure it attracts sufficient numbers of pupils. If they fail to do this they will lose resources and, if they are unable to stem this flow, could 'wither on the vine'. Kent county council said that it had a particular problem because of a temporary dip in numbers—that is, it is dealing not with a long-term trend but a short-term difficulty. Although the school roll may be due to pick up in, say, five years' time, because of the shortfall in pupils numbers in the interim, there is a shortfall in resources. Kent county council says categorically that, because of the rules governing formula funding, the local authority cannot top up school budgets to help schools through this problem. The authority has asked whether more flexible approaches to the proplem can be taken without abandoning the principle of formula funding. For example, could not a school that has no transport costs be credited with the opportunity costs of transport, so that that is taken in on the plus side of its revenue? Apparently, the formula funding problem is as bad whether it is a locally managed scheme or not.

Kent county council feels that if it is facing a massive reorganisation, it should be possible to treat the whole thing as one big in and out scheme so that, instead of having to hand back the proceeds to the Treasury when it disposes of buildings, it could say that that money is but a part of the cost of having to provide other buildings, and it could then be assessed only on the net proceeds. The county council has worked out that if it were allowed to do that, it would be able to produce a profit of £4 million in west Kent, which it could use for new buildings——

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the county council's interpretation of the rigidity of the formulas is correct, there is a serious danger that a whole range of schools will opt for direct funding which, if it were to continue, would make running the local education authority very difficult?

Miss Widdecombe

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He, too, is most concerned about this problem because his constituency covers part of Maidstone and these schools serve his constituents. He is right—Maplesden Noakes school has already applied to opt out, as has Cornwallis school. Those schools will be familiar to my hon. Friend.

Obviously, a pattern could be set but I do not believe that that pattern would be necessary if Kent county council could say finally and firmly, "This is what we want to do. These are the schools that will survive. We shall ensure that there is no reduction whatsoever in the number of grammar school places. We shall ensure that buildings are ready and in place when the changeover to 11 is made so that education does not suffer. This is the number of places that we have to provide for in high schools, and this is the number of high schools that we need."

If Kent could say that finally and firmly and could assure my constituents that there is no question that between now and the time when selection takes place it will indulge in endless reviews based on some immediate ad hoc assessments of where school rolls are falling and where they are not, my constituents could have the stability that they want. If the only way that schools can guarantee stability is to seek to opt out, there is obviously the possibility of increased numbers of applications to opt out. That in turn will make it difficult for the Kent county council to come up with a proper organisation.

Apart from the maintenance of grammar school places, my constituents are also concerned about the size of the schools involved. It was proposed that the Oakwood site would be closed, but that Oakwood school would be amalgamated with Invicta girls school to produce one large mixed grammar school. The proposed size of that school was 1,600 pupils. Surely this Government of all Governments have always believed that small schools have a value as long as they are viable, that individual attention for pupils is valuable and that large impersonal schools do not always best serve the community.

Two years ago, when the proposed high school reorganisation was under way, we were told that some of the schools would have 1,100 pupils, but now we are told that a grammar school of 1,600 pupils is proposed. That flies in the face of what I think both the Government and the county consider ideal. Indeed, the county has said that the ideal school size is 800 pupils. That makes one wonder why it has come up with a proposal for a school twice that size.

Apart from the closure of the grammar school and the fact that the new school would be on a different side of town, my constituents would be deeply unhappy if the number of smaller schools in the area were to decrease and they were left only with a choice of enormous schools where the head cannot possibly know every pupil, where there will be increased discipline problems—that must occur even in the grammar school system if the school is very large—and where the individual development of each child is much harder to maintain.

I should welcome the Minister's comments on what the Department regards as the right size of school at least in general, if not in this context. Does the Minister agree that the Kent county council, whose grammar schools have an excellent reputation, should not come up with a system which results in fewer grammar schools? Is there any possibility of treating the whole reorganisation as an in and out scheme and is there any way that formula funding could be made more flexible to help schools that face a temporary problem? Is it true, as Kent county council has said, that if it wants to keep a school open but there is a temporary problem, it is forbidden to top up? Is there something that Kent could be doing? If so, my constituents want to know about it, because they would demand that Kent does it.

There has been a massive public outcry against Kent's proposals, particularly this week when the decision was being taken. I can see exactly what will happen. These proposals will be dropped as the review of the high schools was dropped. We shall enter the next academic year with Oakwood thoroughly blighted because nobody will know whether it will survive in the long term. We shall face another period of gross uncertainty in which schools will be named as possibilities for closure. The process will have been going on for years. It must be stopped. Does the Minister agree that it is essential for the good health of education anywhere under whatever system that there should be stability and certainty? Does she further agree that even if that must be jeopardised once because of a major review, it should not be jeopardised four times in a short period?

2.45 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on securing this Ajournment debate on the reorganisation of secondary schools in Maidstone and the wider area. I share her anxieties about stability, about which she spoke with such clarity and vigour and which she was right to highlight. I fully understand that the upheaval that has been going on in this part of Kent almost continuously in the past few years is not satisfactory for the stability of the schools or the education of children.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in an intervention noted the possibility of grant-maintained schools causing difficulties for the local education authority in its planning proposals. That may well be so, but grant-maintained schools may provide the stability that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone talked about. When considering the possibility of grant-maintained status the Government have always borne in mind the wishes and entitlement of parents to have a choice in education.

My hon. Friend drew attention to the public consultations on several options for the future organisation of schools in her area in general and Mid-Kent in particular. She mentioned that Maidstone grammar school and Maidstone grammar school for girls are unlikely to be changed. However, she said that it was intended to amalgamate Oakwood Park grammar school and Invicta grammar school for girls. I listened carefully to her comments about that and about the possibility of changing the age of entry from 13 to 11. I have noted her points about the uncertainty that that is causing and about the effects of school size and of choice of school for parents.

I shall concentrate first on the way in which the Government look at reorganisation. It is important to describe how proposals come to us for decision. Obviously, we have to look at the proposals sent to us by local authorities strictly on their merits. We take careful account of the circumstances and arguments put forward, both for and against. We listen to the consultations, but we cannot prejudge the issues.

Therefore, I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that I cannot tell her precisely what our views might be on particular proposals and so it would be difficult for me to give her specific guidance or reassurance about the sizes of schools, the way in which they are organised and whether there is adequate choice in terms of single sex schools or grammar schools. All those issues must come through in the section 12 proposals.

Local education authorities should be looking carefully at their school organisations because the Government are committed to improving quality for education. That was part of the thrust of our Education Reform Act 1988. We are also committed to ensuring that there is better value for money in education and, with all the other demands we have, that we make the best use of the resources that we can afford for education.

We have repeatedly been asking local education authorities to remove surplus places in schools that have been created by falling rolls. When those places are removed it releases money for more productive use, for example in improving the learning environment through larger budgets for repairs and maintenance and for passing on, through local management, to schools.

It is important to say something about my hon. Friend's remarks on size and preference. We do not believe that there is any optimum size for secondary schools. Much depends on local circumstances. Small schools may need relatively more generous support to offset diseconomies of scale, and larger schools have their own challenges. Planning an appropriate school organisation for their areas is a matter for the local education authorities. If the local view is substantially that a school is of a certain size that view will come through clearly in the consultation exercise.

We have always made clear in our circular 3/78 and elsewhere, the importance we attach to giving full weight to parental preferences for particular sizes, types—including the option for either grammar schools or single sex schools. I am sorry that I am not able to give my hon. Friend more guidance on that, but I am sure that she will appreciate the difficulties that I would be in where I to commit myself too firmly at the Dispatch Box.

My hon. Friend mentioned capital receipts and capital in relation to local education authorities when they are making proposals that embrace a large number of schools. She referred, in passing, to what are known as in and out schemes, which allow local education authorities to utilise capital receipts from the sale of facilities for the provision of broadly similar facilities, without having to make the normal 50 per cent. reduction for debt redemption.

We believe that those schemes represent an excellent method of ensuring that resources are used to the maximum advantage. Therefore, it is for each local authority to decide, with its legal advisers and the auditors, where there are particular in and out transactions that come within the terms of the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1990. No approval or consent from the Department of the Environment is required. I think that my hon. Friend knows that, providing those conditions are met, it seems possible for that scheme to operate. I hope that she will welcome that message and take it back to her authority.

I was extremely interested in what my hon. Friend said about the application of local management schemes for schools in Kent. She said that it seems that Kent feels that there are no ways in which assistance can be given to small schools. That is not quite the case, because the Government have always recognised that there are extra costs associated with small schools. I talk not only of primary schools—three quarters of all schools in this country fall into that category—but of a number of secondary schools.

We have given the local education authority quite wide latitude over including factors in its local management of schools formulae to protect the curriculum in small schools. A number of local authorities have taken that up. Many factors to achieve that have been designed by local authorities, some of which could be contacted by Kent for assistance in designing those factors. For example, schools can be allocated lump sums, or there can be per capita enhancement for schools below a threshold size. So long as those factors do not amount to a falling rolls factor—in other words they do not interfere with the amount of money per pupil going into a school—the local authority can submit proposals to the Government and we shall be happy to consider them.

Kent's scheme provides some curriculum protection for primary and middle schools. But I understand that it provides no curriculum protection for secondary schools. That is a matter for the Kent education authority if it wishes to seek a variation in its scheme to lower that point, and we shall consider such an approach.

Mr. Rowe

If, for example, a school wishes to improve its heating system to make savings in future, can money be provided under that flexible arrangement? If such improvements involve running costs more than capital sums, would that be a possibility?

Mrs. Rumbold

There has been some misapprehension concerning Kent. I have spoken to other hon. Members representing Kent constituencies about small schools.

The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent must be considered as part of the total component factors for allocating resources. If an appreciable need is felt by the governing body of a small secondary school that the school should be classified and there should be some compensating factor, it can produce a proposal which we shall consider carefully. I know that that is not a direct answer to my hon. Friend's question, but it opens the door for the authority to approach us.

Obviously, it is right and proper that Kent should review its secondary school provision against that background. The authority is concerned to provide value for money. It is known to be a good authority which takes care to ensure that many of its resources go back to the schools, the children and those responsible for teaching them. Obviously, it is important for Kent to find a way to provide a school system that implements our education reforms and benefits children and parents in the area. But it is entirely for the authority to determine what is the most appropriate organisation to achieve those objectives. It cannot do that in a vacuum. We have made it quite clear that we attach great importance to public consultation and we also have to follow the statutory procedures laid down in sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980. They require that if a local education authority wishes to establish, close or change the size or character of a school, it has to publish proposals explaining its intentions. Following publication there has to be a two-month period in which interested parties can submit objections.

If objections are made, if we give appropriate notice to the local education authority or if the school concerned is a voluntary school, the proposals fall to us to decide. Of course, we shall treat them strictly on their merits. However, through the forum of today's debate, I urge the authority to take great care in its consultations and proposals to take note of the widely held feelings that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has outlined and the disruption that such proposals inevitably cause when parents feel insecure about the future of a school. I wish the authority well and I hope that the schools settle into a sensible plan of organisation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.