SCHOOL PERFORMANCE TARGETS IN LITERACY (Hansard, 28 January 1997)

§ Ms Estelle Morris (Birmingham, Yardley)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 52, in clause 35, page 29, line 36, after 'Curriculum', insert '(to the extent that they are not required under subsection (2)(a) of section (School performance targets in literacy)).'. No. 58, in page 29, line 40, at end insert— '(1A) A governing body shall, before setting annual targets for pupils in the school in accordance with subsection (1) above, consult the local education authority and have regard to its views in setting such targets'

§ Ms Morris
I shall start by saying something that will find agreement on both sides of the House on the importance of literacy in teaching and learning. It is important to master that basic skill if one is to access the rest of the curriculum and to realise one's potential. It is true to say that literacy, more than any other subject, underpins everyone's learning. Certainly, in the debate we had on this issue in Committee, the Minister made clear his agreement with us that any measures that would help to raise literacy standards in our schools should be considered.
The new clause would allow the Secretary of State to require governing bodies of maintained schools to set annual targets for literacy standards. In Committee, the Minister made the valid point that literacy is covered by the national curriculum at all stages and is one of the subjects and skill areas that is subjected to testing by standard assessment test at all the key stages. We have no problem with that: literacy is of paramount importance and it is right that it is a central feature of the national curriculum and of standard assessment tests.
5 pm
Re-reading the Committee Hansard, we can see that the issue on which we parted company with the Government was whether further targets needed to be set year on year, in between assessments at the key stages. 177 The difference between our new clause and the current statutory provisions is that very point: the new clause would allow targets to be set for individual pupils in the years between SATs. Instead of setting targets on literacy for schools to reach that would be measured at the assessment points, we would require annual targets to be set for individual pupil performance for every year of their school career.
Our reason for requiring extra attention to be given to literacy targets, so that literacy is measured more frequently than SATs currently do, is that too many of our young pupils are not achieving the necessary levels of literacy, especially at the age of 11. I know that the Minister, teachers and parents share our concern that more than 40 per cent.—almost half—of 11-year-olds are not achieving the standard of literacy that we could reasonably expect at that age. Unless we conquer that problem and take measures to ensure that as many as possible of our 11-year-olds achieve a reading age that is commensurate with their chronological age, we will allow them to enter secondary school without having mastered the important skill of literacy.
There are a number of ways in which we can do that. Labour proposals for smaller class sizes, more nursery education, and ensuring that children do not move on to the next year in years five and six without having achieved a level of literacy commensurate with their chronological age, are measures that can help us to raise literacy standards. We have to know what standard every pupil has reached at every point in his or her school career. Leaving the testing of literacy standards to tests at seven, 11, 14 and 16 is not sufficient to spot whether children are falling behind in this important area of learning.
I doubt whether this is a contentious issue. The new clause addresses the common concern of all hon. Members to ensure that literacy standards in this country rise to levels equal to those of our competitor nations. It merely provides that all pupils, year on year, should be set targets for improvement in literacy; that those targets should be realised wherever possible; and that action should be taken to support students who are not reaching the target levels that they can reasonably be expected to reach.
The new clause and the associated amendments build on provisions already in the Bill that will require schools to set targets at the key stages by requiring them also to set targets year on year, so that we can reach the point at which we are setting targets for literacy year on year, making sure that those targets are reached and taking measures to support pupils when those targets are not reached.
Probably the biggest challenge is to make sure that, at the age of 11, no child moves on to secondary education without having reached a level of literacy and numeracy that equips him or her to cope with the secondary school curriculum. The new clause is but one of several measures that Labour Members believe will help us to meet that challenge. I hope that we can reach a common understanding that target setting on an annual basis by schools to help raise literacy standards will play an important part in our shared quest to raise standards for all our pupils, especially in key areas.

§ Mr. Forth
As the hon. Lady pointed out, new clause 11 is intended to focus schools' attention on their pupils' 178 levels of literacy. No one would disagree that that is a vitally important task and it is one that the Government have set as one of their highest priorities: that is why we have placed basic skills at the heart of the school curriculum and teacher training, and why we have set up the literacy and numeracy centres that are already giving excellent support to teachers around the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment made clear in her recent speech at the north of England conference that she will be saying more over the next few weeks and months about the Government's plans in that key area, so it can be seen that we are operating in a dynamic environment.
The new clause fails to recognise what the Government are already doing to deal with literacy. We have introduced regular assessment of pupils for the purposes of the national curriculum—and that, of course, includes English. This year, we are again improving the quality and rigour of tests in schools and emphasising the acquisition of basic numeracy and literacy skills. At key stage 1, the 1997 arrangements include new reading tasks and tests; a writing task for all children which assesses their ability to communicate meaning in writing, to use punctuation and spelling accurately and to write legibly; a spelling test, mainly for those working at level 2 or above in writing; and complementary teacher assessment.
At key stage 2, there is a reading comprehension test, a writing test, a spelling and handwriting test and complementary teacher assessment. At key stage 3, there is a Shakespeare paper that sets questions requiring close reading and analysis of a particular scene, a writing paper, a national pilot of a new paper specifically testing grammar, spelling and punctuation, and complementary teacher assessment. All those measures demonstrate our commitment to improving standards of literacy.
Two further reservations prevent me from accepting the hon. Lady's remarks, and we touched on these points in Committee. To single out literacy above all other subjects is mistaken. When I was asked in Committee whether there was anything else I could mention that was as important as literacy, I hazarded that, to my mind, numeracy ranks on a level with literacy. Others might argue that communication skills, which differ from narrowly defined literacy, are as important in today's and tomorrow's world, while yet others might say that a mastery of information technology is becoming a fundamental skill.

§ Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport)
There is a difference between literacy and numeracy and other aspects of technology, because literacy is that which underpins all learning. Reading, writing, listening and speaking skills are absolutely essential to learning numeracy or any other subject in the curriculum. We are saying that literacy is so important because it is the fundamental base for all learning; in that sense, it differs from the other skills that the Minister mentioned.

§ Mr. Forth
The hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to disagree on that point. I do not think that his analysis is accurate, nor that it merits inclusion on the face of statute, which would be the effect of the new clause.
I have a different problem with amendment No. 58, which yet again seeks to insert local education authorities into the process. That is unnecessary and, indeed, 179 grant-maintained schools in particular would have some difficulty with the amendment's absolute and blanket requirement for local education authority involvement. Whether that is an accident or a subtle ploy by Labour Members, we may never know. One way or another, however, I believe that it is a fundamental objection.

§ Ms Estelle Morris
I wish to press the Minister on an issue that he has not mentioned. He referred to target setting at key stages 1, 2 and 3. The new clause would ensure that literacy targets are set for every year of a child's school career. Will the Minister address that key aspect of the new clause before he concludes his remarks?

§ Mr. Forth
It is a matter of judgment whether we are ready for that degree of prescription. Opposition Members—perhaps the hon. Lady herself—have criticised the Government over the years for introducing too much central prescription and control in education. One of the ironies of recent developments is that we are in danger of being overtaken on the fast track by Opposition Members, such as the hon. Lady, who want Government to prescribe even more than the Department for Education and Employment has suggested. The hon. Lady may like to ponder that point.
I am not persuaded that the new clause would be productive—indeed, I fear that it might even be counter-productive, for the reasons that I have outlined. Therefore, I hope that it will not be accepted by the House.

§ Ms Estelle Morris
That argument is rather difficult to accept from a Government who prescribe almost everything that occurs in education and who retain so many powers. The Minister said that it is not appropriate to set yearly literacy targets in education, but there is nothing more important than ensuring that our young people master literacy at an early age. If they do not succeed in primary school, they have little chance of mastering literacy at a secondary level. Literacy is central to learning, and too many children do not achieve the required levels of literacy at age 11.
Targets are important at the key stages, but much learning occurs between the ages of five and seven, seven and 11, and 11 and 14. If teachers do not identify what is going wrong at age eight, three valuable years will be wasted before the problems are discovered at age 11. The new clause calls for constant monitoring and target setting so that every child may improve his or her literacy standards year on year. That is what parents want. I cannot think that any parents would resent the Government's requiring their children to be set targets in order to improve their literacy skills year on year.
The Minister refuses to accept a simple new clause that requires that targets be set so that every child may improve his or her literacy skills on a yearly basis. Opposition Members have made clear the importance that we attach to high standards of literacy, and we believe that every child should improve in that area year on year. We want schools and everyone else to support children in achieving those targets. I am sure that parents and teachers would welcome the move, which would be good for pupils and for education standards in this country. I regret very much that the Minister will not accept the new 180 clause. However, as I am conscious of the need to make progress in considering the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.