HC Deb 02 March 1993 vol 220 cc121-3
1. Mr. Hanson

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received in the last month on key stage 3 English.

14. Mr. Jamieson

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of the responses he has received regarding the key stage 3 English tests for 1993 have been critical of his proposals in their present form.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten)

I have received various letters on key stage 3 English. These raise a wide range of issues. I made an announcement about them on 19 February.

Mr. Hanson

Is the Secretary of State aware that today hon. Members on both sides of the House will have received a further letter from teachers' representatives showing that 99 per cent. of teachers involved in the tests have described them as inadequately planned and prepared? In the face of growing opposition from teachers, parents and school governors, why does the Secretary of State persist in pushing forward with the tests? Is it not time that he postponed them?

Mr. Patten

I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question. He cannot be aware that the Secondary Heads Association, the National Association of Head Teachers, the Professional Association of Teachers and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers have all welcomed my announcement on 19 February. Characteristically, the two TUC-related trades unions—the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers—continue with their threats. In the face of evidence of growing illiteracy, it is critically important that the tests go ahead this year and in future, so that we can deal with the problem, which I am afraid has been growing since the 1960s.

Mr. Jamieson

The Secretary of State will have received many representations from my constituency in Plymouth, from Devon and throughout the country regarding key stage 3 English tests. Last week, he will have received a letter from the Tory chair of a governing body—[HON. MEMBERS: "Chair?"] That is how he describes himself. He is the chair of Devonport high school for boys, a grammar school in Plymouth, and he strongly objects to the tests. Is not the fact that the Secretary of State has had to defer publication of the test results this year an indication that the tests are flawed? In the light of that, will he make them optional this year, so that governors can make a proper choice about what is right for their children?

Mr. Patten

I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands a serious situation in the teaching of English. Recent independent evidence, made available and published two Fridays ago, showed that up to a third of young people leaving school aged 16 and going to further education colleges needed remedial help with understanding English because they had the reading age of 14-year-olds. That shows the urgency of the situation and the necessity of having a test at 14 as soon as possible, to identify those young men and women who need help with grappling with the English language—a problem which should have been sorted out long before they reached the age of 16.

Mr. Cormack

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people who have studied his statement on 19 February are grateful for it, but hope that he will keep in close touch with heads of English and others, and monitor closely the first unpublished tests?

Mr. Patten

I welcome my hon. Friend's welcome and am pleased to see him back in the Chamber after his recent ill health. What he says is right—we should monitor carefully the results of the tests this summer. They will be made known to parents and we shall publish the national picture, which I hope will not give me cause for concern, as I fear that it may—I hope that I am proved wrong. We shall also ask the inspectorate—the Office for Standards in Education—to examine the conduct of the tests. As each test is introduced each year—whether it is key stage English 3, the GCSE, or the A-level—it is preparation for the next year's tests, and each test is refined and developed. Teachers have been teaching children approaching the age of 14 this year key stage English 3 for three years and have had a lot of time for preparation. They have nothing to fear and everything to gain from the tests.

Mr. Ward

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. Can he explain why any competent teacher should have anything to fear from demonstrating that he has reached the standards expected of him?

Mr. Patten

I think that most teachers are highly professional and I pay tribute to our hard-working teachers. Sometimes, however, there is a bit of fear of the unknown and of something new. People do not like their performance to be exposed, professionals in particular. We in this place are exposed in our performance every clay. When something new comes along, sometimes people are rather frightened of it, but teachers of English should remember that, last year, when the tests for maths and science were first held, they were universally reported on by the inspectorate as having been successful and enjoyed by pupils. Truancy on that day went right down, because 98 per cent. of children turned up to do those tests, which was far more than are normally in school. Children will enjoy the new test and will benefit from it.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

Leaving aside the Secretary of State's new answer for truancy, which seems to rely on having tests every day, the Labour party welcomes his partial climbdown regarding the reporting of the results of the key stage 3 test. The Opposition do not accept, however, that those tests are essential for identifying illiteracy, although we find it interesting that the Secretary of State referred to "growing illiteracy" after the Government have been in power for 14 years. Will the Secretary of State now follow through the logic of his own acknowledgment that the tests are flawed and postpone them for a year so that parents and teachers can have proper confidence in tests that have been properly trialled?

Mr. Patten

I am very sorry that the hon. Lady should sneer at what the Government, in a coalition of interested people, are doing to try to deal with the issue of truancy up and down the land. That shows the attitude of those on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Lady has displayed what I have always suspected about her; she does not support the concept of testing.

We have seen the shadow Home Secretary trying to slip into the clothes of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, which in itself is a difficult task. We see the modernisers of the Labour party trying to come aboard a Conservative agenda on law and order. I am afraid that no such Opposition modernisers have reached the Labour Front Bench. I greatly fear that if the NUT and the NAS/UWT in different parts of the country suggest boycotting the tests, we will find the hon. Lady, who is led by the nose by the producer lobby, backing those trade unions in any boycotts.