Examination Results (Hansard, 24 January 1996)

§ 11. Sir David Madel
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what conclusions she has drawn from the 1995 A-level and GCSE examination results; and if she will make a statement. [9425]

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice)
1995 was another year of which teachers and candidates can be justly proud. The GCSE and GCE results in 1995 were among the best ever achieved.

§ Sir David Madel
Does my hon. Friend agree that A-level and GCSE results will continue to improve as long as schools maintain a vigorous policy of setting and streaming, subject by subject?

§ Mr. Paice
I certainly hope and believe that there will be a continued improvement, as there has been for many years, in the success rates at GCSE and A-level examinations. As for setting and streaming, obviously the 344 structure of their teaching mechanisms is a matter for teachers and governors to decide, but I suggest that any means of grouping pupils according to ability or aptitude that enables teachers to focus their efforts more effectively must lead to better results for everyone concerned.

§ Mr. Bryan Davies
Will the Minister confirm that, for the first time for very many years, the percentage of 16-year-olds staying on in full-time education has decreased this year? How on earth are we to attain the targets for achievement among 18-year-olds—the targets that the Government have set—if we are slipping back at this stage?

§ Mr. Paice
The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand what targets are, because they do not specifically relate to school-achieved qualifications. For example, the target at ages 18 and 19 relates to qualifications equivalent to NVQ3, and those qualifications may be an NVQ gained partly at work or partly at college, or A-levels. There is a range of ways in which those qualifications may be achieved. To equate staying-on rates with the ability to meet our targets is a complete misunderstanding of what targets are all about.

§ Mr. Harry Greenway
Will my hon. Friend consider the examination results in those 11 schools—schools most of which I know well, and have known for 30 years—that are between the home of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and St. Olave's school in Orpington? Will he not find—I can assure him that he will—that more money is being spent on those schools now by the Government than was ever spent on them previously; that the Labour Inner London education authority and its predecessor, the London county council, for both of which organisations I have worked, also spent large sums on those schools; and that the present Lambeth and Southwark councils are also spending unprecedented sums on the schools?
It cannot be said that those schools are underfunded. It cannot be said that they do not have the opportunity to achieve properly. If local parents would send their children to those schools, as they expect other parents to do in other areas, the schools would have a better chance.

§ Mr. Paice
My hon. Friend has studied the statistics in great depth and I would not dream of dissenting from them. As he reminded the House, secondary level education in Southwark is better funded than ever before by this Government and, more important, it is better funded than in many other local education authorities in the area. More money is spent per secondary pupil in Southwark than is spent in Barking, Brent, Bexley or, yes, Bromley. If we look further afield, we will see that Southwark spends £400 more per pupil than Bradford.
The important point is the way in which that money is used to maximum effect in the teaching of our young people. It is no coincidence that some of the authorities with the worse performance record are led by Labour, and have been for decades.