HL Deb 05 February 1986 vol 470 cc1138-51

3.4 p.m.

Baroness Cox rose to call attention to the case for avoiding the politicisation of education, including the use of public funds for partisan political purposes, and the violation of the principle of freedom of speech, in universities, colleges and schools; and to move for Papers.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise this afternoon to draw attention to a matter of great concern for the future of our country. That future lies in the hands of the next generation and is to a considerable extent shaped by its education. Those who wish to bring about radical or revolutionary change may try to use education for their ends. I must stress at the outset that this is not happening everywhere. I should also like at the outset to pay great tribute to the countless dedicated and conscientious people in education who are fulfilling their responsibilities magnificently, often in difficult circumstances.

I must also stress that I am not complacent about the serious problems that beset our society, but those problems do not justify what is happening in many of our universities, polytechnics, secondary schools and even primary schools, where there is a violation of education as it is understood in a free society. I refer to deliberate attempts to undermine and to destroy our cultural heritage, our traditional beliefs and values and our democratic freedoms.

To illustrate the nature of my concern let me give your Lordships some examples. The first concerns freedom of speech. That freedom is a touchstone of a free society and is essential for the pursuit of truth and knowledge which lies at the heart of education as we know it. It should be enshrined in our academies, by which I mean our universities, polytechnics and colleges. If it is denied there, there is indeed something rotten in the state of Britain.

It is therefore disturbing that in recent years we have seen numerous instances of censorship of various kinds. For example, there have been many instances when visiting speakers, sometimes Ministers of State, have been prevented from speaking by physical and verbal attacks. Recent cases include the appalling treatment of Mr David Waddington at Manchester University and the denial of platforms to both academic and political speakers at Southampton University.

Such violations of the principle of the freedom of speech are deeply disturbing, but perhaps even more worrying is the recent paper by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals which concedes that censorship might be allowed on occasions in the interests of security. That seems to me totally unacceptable. If our academies condone censorship, we are on a road that once led to Nazi Germany and now leads to totalitarianism such as that found behind the Iron Curtain. I hope that the guardians of our academies will make freedom of speech their overriding commitment, however unpalatable the views of the speakers may be to them or to their militant students.

If disruptions occur, those responsible for them should be disciplined. I realise that the situation may be complicated. The universities do not have their own police and some troublemakers may be outsiders. But these are not insuperable problems and a commitment to protect freedom of speech must override pragmatic concessions to mob hooliganism. A particularly degrading concession occurred at the Polytechnic of North London when students had been disrupting the college and preventing teaching during the notorious Harrington affair. Your Lordships may remember seeing the scenes of violence on your television screens. Staff were ordered by the High Court to identify the students, but some refused to do so. They incurred legal costs of about £30,000, and the court of governors agreed that those costs should be paid out of public money.

Censorship on campuses has also taken other forms. The youth branch of Peace through NATO has been prohibited from exhibiting its publications. At Loughborough University the students' union refused permission on the grounds that student union policy is unilateral in nature; while at Southampton University permission was refused because the students' union happens to be a nuclear free zone.

Also, on a disturbing number of campuses Conservative students have been intimidated, harassed and even physically assaulted. The fact that they are Conservative students is irrelevant. No students engaged in lawful activities should be treated as they have been. Their stalls at Freshers' fairs have been attacked. Individuals have been physically hurt, abused and spat at. Attempts to hold meetings have been prevented sometimes by violence and sometimes by the authorities on the grounds that they are a security risk. A recent report lists 32 universities and polytechnics where such unacceptable incidents have occurred in the past few months, from Strathclyde University in the north to Sussex in the south, from Gwent College of Higher Education in Wales to the Universities of Essex and East Anglia. I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister what steps the Government are taking to honour their commitment in last year's Green Paper to maintain freedom of speech under the law in our universities and polytechnics.

I turn now to the use of money for political purposes by some students unions. As the money entrusted to them is public money, the use to which it is put is of public interest. Most people do not begrudge contributing to the cost of students' education. But they would be very angry if they knew that their money was being used for purposes such as coaches to Greenham Common, affiliation to CND or donations to the miners' strike. The Polytechnic of North London students' union has a budget this year of £214,000, not bad in a time of cuts, especially as it only spends about 10 per cent. on student clubs and societies. If ever there was a time for making membership of student unions voluntary and putting an end to such an abuse of public money, it is now.

I return briefly to the important issue of censorship. I refer to the treatment meted out to Mr. Ray Honeyford, former headmaster of Drummond Middle School in Bradford. He was a much respected head, held in great affection by pupils and staff. But he was subjected to a campaign of hatred and ferocious abuse for daring to write about the difficulties of providing good education for all pupils in a school where high proportions of children do not speak English as a first language. For this, he was hounded out of his post having been subjected to serious death threats and, together with his young pupils, having to run a gauntlet of shouting and jeering crowds on his way into school each day. It is a disturbing portent when an experienced teacher cannot voice legitimate concerns without being dubbed a racist and driven from his job.

That word "racism" introduces my next theme—the politicisation of teaching and curricula. Some local authorities and teachers have adopted specifically political commitments with which they try to permeate the teaching of all subjects or to establish new subjects. Examples include so-called anti-racism, anti-sexism, peace studies and world studies. It is invidious having to criticise subjects with such plausible names. If one criticises peace studies, one feels like a warmonger. If one dares to challenge what is going on in the name of anti-racism, one runs a real risk of being attacked as a racist even though one abhors racism and is deeply concerned about it. But Mr. Honeyford's fate is not unique. Another teacher Mr. Jonathan Savery who had the courage to publish doubts about what is going on in multi-cultural education is now the target of similar attacks.

If your Lordships are wondering why there is concern about what is going on in the name of anti-racism, let me give you some examples from ILEA which is committed to promoting anti-racism throughout the whole curriculum, even developing anti-racist maths. Mr. Singh, one of ILEA's anti-racist team, claims, according to the Sunday Times of 25th November 1984, that, It is naive to argue that western mathematics teaching is politically neutral". Subtraction methods of borrowing and paying back reflect mercantile capitalsim. So anti-racist maths has been developed and is being practised in some schools. At the Dick Sheppard School in Tulse Hill, an anti-racist maths lesson was observed by an experienced teacher who has described how it involved comparing the wages of Sri Lankan tea workers with the prices of tea in western markets. The anti-racism message consisted of observing the exploitation that the figures are supposed to imply. This is, surely, arrant nonsense. The figures by themselves are meaningless and their discussion has nothing to do with the teaching of maths.

But perhaps even more disturbing is some of the material produced specifically on racism such as ILEA's teaching pack called Auschwitz: Yesterday's Racism. Much of that pack illustrates effectively the horrors of Auschwitz. That is unexceptionable. But education becomes political indoctrination when loaded questions and foregone conclusions are slipped in among discussion of the horrors of the death camp. For example, the teachers' guide suggests that children should make links with today by comparing Auschwitz with recent anti-trade union legislation. Note the prefix "anti" as an example of a typical foregone conclusion! The children are also to link Auschwitz with the behaviour of our police on picket lines and with the GCHQ issue. I am not alone in finding this association of ideas and the trivialisation of the horrors of Auschwitz particularly offensive.

I move on now to anti-sexism. Much of the material here is concerned with promoting equal opportunities for girls. I have no quarrel with this; indeed, I welcome it. But much is also essentially anti-heterosexual. For example, the most recent issue of the magazine, Teaching London Kids, funded by the GLC, focuses on homosexuality with articles on "Introducing Gay Issues into the Curriculum" and "A White Lesbian Teacher's Experiences in a Boys School" in which the teacher claims: I want to engage all the students in becoming aware of, and examining, the conditioning process which damages all of us, which conditions us towards accepting heterosexuality as the real world". Presumably, it is this preoccupation that lies behind the poster seen in a London youth club which proclaims: Heterosexuality is a socially transmitted disease". And, presumably, this preoccupation must also explain events recounted to me by a parent in North London whose daughter had to attend compulsory classes in personal and social education at the expense of having to drop either history or geography. In these classes, 13-year-old girls had to cut out pictures of naked women and fix men's heads to them. It was said that the teacher showed an example of a naked woman with the head of Denis Thatcher. Your Lordships might be thinking that you did not have such fun in your lessons at Eton or at your local grammar school. And, indeed, that example might sound ludicrous. But such practices are surely potentially psychologically disturbing and destabilising for young people especially when their own identities are at a vulnerable stage of development. It is sad indeed when it is in our schools that, in the words of Yeats, The ceremony of innocence is drowned". And, certainly, most parents would not wish their children to be having such lessons at school.

However, some teachers seem to regard parents' values as something to be opposed. According to a parent, the head teacher in a London primary school forbade a little girl to obey her parents' instructions to look after her younger brother because the teacher objected to the parents indoctrinating the girl with ideas of looking after men. These bizarre examples may seem far from the politicisation of education. But there are clear links between anti-sexism and politics. Indeed, those who promote anti-sexism would claim that it is political. And such politics are also consistent with the general revolutionary programme outlined by Lenin and his contemporary followers, part of which is to destabilise society by undermining traditional relationships, especially those of family life.

In other developments the political message is more self-evident—for example, in an anti-police propaganda. Of course the police are not perfect. But the material put out, for example, by the GLC, or the Hackney branch of the National Union of Teachers, is grossly distorted, only showing the police as brutal, racist, and incompetent. There is no adequate account of their merits or of attempts they are making to respond to legitimate criticism. The material—posters, booklets and a video—are indoctrinatory in their gross bias and appear calculated to stir up hatred, conflict and contempt: classic ingredients for revolution. It is also particularly serious in conjunction with policies of keeping police out of the school.

I now turn very briefly to "Peace Studies" and "World Studies". I link them because they are so similar in their political message. Several analyses have shown how, from university to primary school, the pattern is the same: a consistent anti-Western, anti-NATO, and often stridently anti-American bias, and a consistent lack of any serious discussion of the military and political strategies of the Soviet Union or of the realities of life behind the Iron Curtain.

Much of the material is also educationally inadequate. For example, Exeter Teachers For Peace produced a booklet to encourage teachers to promote peace education across all subjects. It describes how a course on Christian belief might include questions for discussion such as, "Young people, which do you prefer.…atom bombs or charity?" The educational dishonesty of that question as a serious teaching device is, I believe, contemptible. Also contemptible was the behaviour of a teacher who, during the Falklands conflict, told a girl whose father was on active service as a Royal Marine, that he was a "murderer".

In some places there has been explicit refusal even to attempt to teach peace studies in a balanced way. For example, parents at a Manchester school were so worried about bias that they asked the governors to endorse this motion: That the governors resolve that whenever peace education is included as part of the curriculum of the school, direct or hidden, as a separate subject or as an integral part of another subject, it be taught in a balanced way, with presentation of both sides of the disarmament question—for and against. The motion was defeated, and the teachers abstained.

The result of this bias in teaching peace and world studies is that many of our young people are led to believe that there is at best a moral equivalence between the democracies of the West and the closed societies of the Soviet bloc. In more politicised situations, they are inculcated with disaffection or even hatred for our own society and admiration for the triumphs of communism. They are therefore likely to reject the twin premises of defence and deterrence which underpin NATO because they perceive nothing worth defending and nothing which requires deterrence.

I have tended to concentrate mostly on developments at school level, although such subjects as peace studies reach across the borders from university to teacher training to schools. But there are other areas of politicisation which primarily affect adults in subjects such as sociology or in courses of professional training, for example, teachers or social workers. Not all the critics are Right-wing or Tory. One of the most recent critiques of the politicisation of a subject was written by Professor David Marsland, an SDP member, who attacked sociology textbooks for their treatment of war and defence as unacceptably biased and anti-western.

Each of the examples I have given is, I believe, cause for concern in its own right. But taken together—with numerous other examples I could have given—they can be seen as part of the long march through the institutions by those on the far Left who would destroy democracy. May I stress that I would be equally critical if they came from the far Right, but today It is the Left who are fostering a systematic campaign to politicise education. Mr. George Nicholson, when he was given responsibility for political education in ILEA, claimed that his job was, like a subversive campaign … I don't believe there is any subject untouched by politics". And Robin Richardson, now Principal Education Adviser for Brent, wrote 10 commandments for educators. His first commandment is, "Never Forget there's a War on" and he commands teachers to remember, "Your commitment should be to justice, not to truth".

This view of education as part of the revolutionary struggle is reflected in political activities, such as the distribution of a manual to Liverpool school governors giving advice on how to disrupt meetings and undermine the authority of the head. It has since found its way to other cities. It is no wonder that the London Standard recently reported numerous resignations by head teachers from inner city schools under the heading, Left blamed as 28 Heads quit early". It claims that Haringey's Left-wing policies were causing an exodus of head teachers. One of them, Mr. Deverson, who left Down Lane Junior School last Easter claimed that local initiatives on race and sex equality were largely to blame.

He said, I am sure we all believe in equality but they have gone the other way … they want to turn the Borough into a feminist state".

Such retreat from the field of battle by experienced teachers, although understandable, will leave the field wide open for further politicisation. One head teacher said to me recently, I fear for the future of London's schoolchildren". The plight of pupils in many London schools and elsewhere is reflected in the despair which leads many parents to make big sacrifices to get their children out of state schools and into independent schools. Many of these parents are not well off but they are so desperate that they sometimes even set up their own schools. One notable example is the John Loughborough School in North London, set up by members of the West Indian community. Dismayed not only by poor academic standards, but also by the lack of moral and spiritual education in local state schools, they set up their own school, with the help of their church. They pay £600 a year for each child, a large sum for families who are not at all well off. I had the privilege of giving the prizes at the last prize-giving and I was deeply impressed. The school clearly gives its pupils an impressive education—academically, morally and spiritually. And I felt a greater spirit of patriotism and appreciation for what is good in our society in that school than I have found in many of our state schools. At John Loughborough School they even sang the National Anthem—something which rarely happens in many of our state schools nowadays.

I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government could do something to help initiatives such as this. After all, it is because we have failed to provide adequate moral, spiritual and academic education that parents have been forced to make such sacrifices and pay for alternative education.

The implications of politicisation of education reach far beyond schools and colleges out into the wider society and into the future. We have touched on the effect of peace studies in undermining the political will for defence. Other effects include a "drip" effect: a general erosion of appreciation of, and loyalty to, what is good for our country, in our cultural heritage, in our traditional values and in our moral standards. And in adult education, there is in some places a "feeder effect": a deliberate turning out of committed Marxists into key posts, such as teaching, social work, trade unions, the media and local government.

I repeat that I am not complacent about the very real problems in our society. But attempts to think about remedies are very different from commitment to a revolution which would destroy democracy and freedom. If we care about the preservation of a free society, we will do well to take the politicisation of education very seriously.

As I draw to my conclusion, I ask very briefly, what remedies might we consider? First, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Education has just issued a draft circular on guidelines for teaching politically contentious subjects. But as it stands it is very limited and will need considerable strengthening before meeting the concerns I have expressed this afternoon. Secondly, some consideration should be given to the possibility of changes in the law to protect pupils from indoctrination—a difficult but not impossible task.

Thirdly, many people believe the time is ripe for an inquiry into the nature and extent of politicisation in education. The evidence that I have given is only part of that which I could have given; I could have written the same speech many times over, with different examples. But all of these are only part of the picture. At present we have no systematic way of gathering evidence or of putting it into its complete context. Therefore I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he will ask his right honourable friend to set up a searching inquiry into these matters, in ways which protect parents and pupils from intimidation and victimisation.

Finally, I believe that our young generation should have the education which they deserve in the form of education in a free society and education for a free society. Education in a free society should enshrine the principles of freedom of speech, freedom to pursue the truth and freedom to develop views and interests not predetermined by the political commitments of local authorities or of teachers. To deny them this is a betrayal of our birthright. And I also believe that we should educate them for a free society by encouraging them to think critically and rigorously on the basis of all available relevant evidence about the problems which persist in our society as well as its achievements and advantages, especially our precious heritage of freedom. Such education should also enable them to consider critically alternative kinds of society, which means studying not only the problems of the West but also the realities of Marxism-Leninism, the creed which underpins so much politicised education.

Until we appreciate the nature and extent of this politicisation, and resist it when it violates the basic principles of a free society, we run a real risk of allowing our young generation to take their heritage of freedom for granted. Unless they learn that freedom is both precious and precarious they may realise too late that, once lost, it may be impossible to regain. This is why what is happening in parts of our education system is desperately important and why we ignore it at our peril and at the peril of our children and our children's children. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.32 p.m.

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, this afternoon my noble friend Lady Cox has provided us with the opportunity to debate an important issue, and in a very powerful and excellent speech she has put some of those concerns before your Lordships. It is fundamental to the health of our society that our children and young people receive an unbiased education, and any threat to this must clearly be regarded with the greatest concern. The Motion before us today refers to all phases of education, but I shall concentrate my remarks on activities in our schools. Other issues raised by my noble friend and noble Lords who will speak later which are more relevant to further and higher education will be answered by my noble friend Lady Hooper when she sums up at the end of the debate.

This debate is particularly opportune because, as my noble friend Lady Cox said in her speech, yesterday my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales initiated consultation on drafts of a circular to local education authorities and of a statement of principles which they believe should inform on the treatment of politically controversial issues in schools and colleges. My noble friend Lady Cox was not aware that this would be the case when she tabled today's Motion, but as matters have turned out this debate is most timely.

My right honourable friends have issued the draft circular and statement of principles because they are aware of disquiet that politically controversial issues may sometimes be tackled in schools and colleges in a manner which amounts to indoctrination. What my noble friend has told us this afternoon is an indication of the degree and nature of the sort of disquiet about which my right honourable friends are concerned. They believe, however, that the education service has a long and honourable tradition of upholding the principles of a free and open society. They are certain that all the partners in the service agree that this tradition must be upheld. Accordingly, it seemed right to them to involve the education service as a whole to agree a set of principles for the treatment of politically controversial issues. Those being consulted about the draft documents include the local authority associations, the school and further education teacher associations, the voluntary bodies and the Society of Education Officers.

The text of the draft statement of principles is short—in fact, it extends to only three paragraphs—and it repays careful study. Copies of the texts of the draft documents, and of the consultation letter issued by my right honourable friends, are in the Library of the House.

The draft documents make it very clear that the Government stand firmly against any attempt to distort or subvert for partisan political purposes the education of our children. There can be no justification for a teacher failing to live up to his professional responsibility to deal with politically controversial issues, when they arise in the classroom, in a fair and balanced way. Equally, there can be no justification for a local education authority seeking to encourage teaching of a propagandist or politically-biased character in its schools. My right honourable friend set out the Government's views on these and other related matters when he spoke to a one-day conference on peace studies in 1984 which had been organised by the National Council of Women of Great Britain. A copy of his speech is also available in the Library of the House and is well worth studying.

The Government will continue to do all that they can to ensure that the tradition of upholding the principles of a free and fair society is maintained. But how can we ensure that this tradition is maintained and that bias does not enter the teaching programmes in our schools? How do we prevent the indoctrination of our children in their classrooms?

One answer sometimes suggested is that difficult and controversial issues, which might divide society politically, should be kept out of the classroom altogether. I believe that to be misconceived. It ignores the fact that it is impossible to isolate children as they grow up from the important issues of our time, such as human rights, the needs of the third world, and the availability of nuclear weapons. After all, children hear their parents talking about these issues; see them referred to on television or in the newspapers; and many become concerned and will themselves bring their questions and concerns into the classroom. I do not see how schools can avoid dealing with issues such as these, in a way suited to the different age groups which they teach, if they are to help pupils to understand the world in which they live, and the interdependence of individuals, groups and nations.

If schools are to serve our young people they need to play their full part in equipping them with the knowledge and skills which they will require as future citizens. From the age of 18 they will be able to vote. They will be expected to play a role in their local communities. Most will become earners and taxpayers and ratepayers. Many will become parents. To take up effectively these responsibilities they will need to acquire the skills necessary to understand different viewpoints, appreciate conflicting motives and be able to appraise them critically. To quote Better Schools, the curriculum which is offered should develop the potential of every pupil and equip all for the responsibilities of citizenship and the formidable challenge of employment in the world of tommorrow.

This preparation of our children for their responsibilities in the adult world would therefore be incomplete and even distorted if they were to be shut off from discussion of important but perhaps politically sensitive issues. These issues will inevitably arise in the classroom; indeed, pupils may raise them themselves. As pupils get older they need to be encouraged, not discouraged from applying their minds to important issues of the day. If they are not taught to think critically about these things at that stage, there is the real risk of them becoming easy prey to indoctrination and prejudice in adult life.

If it is accepted that our children will need to confront politically difficult issues in the classroom we need next to ask how we might ensure that such issues are dealt with in a way that is balanced and free of bias. This is essentially a professional matter for teachers. Faced with difficult and politically charged issues, it is important that they approach them as they would any other topic where facts and opinions need to be separated.

A teacher must always strive to ensure that his presentation is as objective as possible. What is offered as fact must be true. Facts need to be selected to ensure that the picture provided for the pupil is neither superficial nor unbalanced. Facts and opinions must be clearly separated.

We must not believe that the teachers' task is an easy one. Offering a picture to pupils which is both balanced and intelligible will often require a very high degree of skill and professional detachment. But a teacher has responsibility to ensure that his pupils are taught how to weigh the evidence and arguments presented to them, so as to arrive at rational judgments of their own. He or she also needs to help pupils to understand that many issues are inherently complicated and not susceptible of a single answer. These can be seen, for example, in the study of history or literature. Part of the value of those subjects, when properly taught, is that they can bring pupils up against just those sorts of questions.

I have discussed so far the role of the teacher as educator in charge of a class. A teacher also has a much more general and special role in relation to his pupils. He is to them in many ways a model and an example a figure of authority whose words and actions have a special place for his pupils. This is particularly so in respect of his younger pupils. He needs therefore to be specially careful both inside and outside the classroom to ensure that when dealing with pupils his presentation is fair and honest. He must avoid allowing his own political views to affect his presentation.

Inevitably, teachers will hold political views of their own. It is more than possible that a teacher will be asked by his pupils for his views. There is no reason why he should not make them clear. In doing so, however, he has a professional obligation also to make it clear that there are other views and that people might well disagree with him. He must encourage his pupils to weigh the evidence presented to them and reach their own conclusions.

The Government believe that society has a right to expect its teachers to act professionally in the ways I have described. It is part of the trust placed in their hands that they strive continually for balance and fairness in their teaching and actions. I must say clearly that I think we are in the main well served by our teachers in this respect. The vast majority of teachers can, I am sure, be relied upon to take their responsibilities entirely seriously.

Nevertheless, although we can rely on most of our teachers to act professionally, it would be wrong to be complacent. It would also be naive to believe that there are not some—albeit a few—who would abuse the trust placed in them. Government Ministers have made clear, and will continue to make clear, that what goes on in schools must always be education and never, never indoctrination.

The Government are concerned to play their part in eliminating any breaches of professionalism in this respect within the nation's schools. It has, however, to be recognised that there are limits to what they can do. It is local education authorities and schools who are responsible for the appointment and direction of teachers and for the detailed control of the content of the secular curriculum. My right honourable friend has powers to intervene under Sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 where he is satisfied that a local education authority is in breach of its statutory duty or acts in a way in which no reasonable authority would act. But before he can consider the use of these statutory powers it is necessary for him to have clear and sufficient evidence on which to reach his conclusions.

My noble friend mentioned the Honeyford and Savery affairs. The Secretary of State's powers to intervene in such cases are limited, as I have said. Under the Education Act 1944 he can intervene only when an LEA has acted unreasonably. The courts have laid down that unreasonable conduct is conduct which no sensible authority, acting with due appreciation of its responsibilities, could have decided to adopt. In both cases that my noble friend mentioned, no evidence was offered that the LEA had in fact acted unreasonably in this sense.

It follows that if parents or others are concerned about possible bias or indoctrination they should first raise the matter with the school. If they are still not satisfied they should take up their concerns with the local education authority and if necessary direct with its members. I recognise that some parents may be reluctant to complain, perhaps fearing difficulties for their own child. But unless specific evidence is received there is no action that can be taken.

May I make a practical suggestion. If parents feel inhibited about sending a complaint to one of my right honourable friends, there is nothing to prevent their making a joint approach with other parents who share their concerns, and this may get them round the problem.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, may I ask a question on that? Do the official records, which one hopes they have, confirm or not confirm the evidence and the facts brought by my noble friend in her opening speech?

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, I am not sure to which records my noble friend refers.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, are there any records?

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, I think it depends on the school. Obviously the parents, if they feel that this sort of thing has been going on in their school, are quite entitled to approach my right honourable friends and they will weigh all the evidence that is given. The more supporting evidence the parents can get, obviously the stronger their case. My right honourable friends have made clear that they take very seriously any such complaints they receive.

My noble friend Lady Cox suggested that to get round the problems I have described there should be legislation to outlaw bias and indoctrination in the classroom. I see real practical difficulties about any such legislation. Definition of bias and indoctrination, and enforcement of the legislation, would be particular problems. Even with clear definitions, the difficulty of identifying actual classroom examples would still remain. These are matters for the professional responsibility of teachers rather than legislation.

Most of what I have said so far relates to teachers. We need also to consider the role of the local education authority. The teacher has a difficult professional task in seeking to provide a balanced education for all pupils at all times. In this task he or she ought to be able to expect the firm support of the local education authority.

In most cases teachers can count on the support they need from their local education authorities being available. I am not convinced, however, that it is always available. Some views and opinions expressed by some local authority members cannot be helpful to their teachers in undertaking their task. An example that my noble friend quoted is the wish of some local education authorities to introduce what they call peace studies into the schools in their area. In a number of cases the motivation of the politicians concerned appears to be to press one particular view of peace and war rather than to ensure a balanced presentation and debate. We made it clear in the White Paper Better Schools that the Government's view is that the issue of war and peace arises naturally from many aspects of the curriculum, and should be treated in the context in which it arises. We believe that to assign a special place in the timetable to courses labelled "peace studies" unbalances the curriculum and oversimplifies the issues involved.

Difficulties have sometimes arisen where both the local education authority and the school governing body are dominated by one political party. The Government have already recognised this problem and it will be dealt with by the proposals included in this Session's education Bill for clarifying the arrangements for school government.

The Government are aware that most local education authorities have, quite legitimately, taken full advantage of their powers under existing legislation to appoint a majority of school governors. Local education authorities could not properly be constrained in whom they chose to appoint, but the Government greatly regret that in a significant number of cases appointments seem to have been made simply on the basis of political allegiance rather than for any particular strength which an individual can contribute to the work of the school. This Session's education Bill will therefore propose major changes in the composition of school governing bodies. These will allow the governing body to become the focus for determining the identity and direction of schools, free of undue political influence.

Under the Government's proposals, the governing bodies of county, controlled and maintained special schools will no longer have a majority of LEA appointed governors. Instead, no single interest will predominate. Parental representation will be increased, and teachers' existing rights of representation will be preserved. In addition, there will be a new category of governor, normally to be co-opted by the rest of the governing body, with the aim of strengthening links with the community served by the school as well as providing an additional opportunity to associate relevant interests, such as industry and commerce with its work.

At the same time, the powers of governing bodies, and those of the local education authority and head teacher, will be clarified and entrenched in primary legislation so that each is guaranteed a proper role in the collaborative effort of providing better schools for the nation's children.

In conclusion, my Lords, I stress again that the Government share the widely held view that preparation for the responsibilities of citizenship is one of education's principal functions; and that pupils and students therefore need to be introduced, as indeed they are, to those issue of a political character which they will come across in the course of their adult life. This must be done in a responsible and unbiased way.

Our concern is not that young people should be protected from these issues; but that those who teach them should at all times encourage pupils and students to form their own conclusions on the basis of a critical examination of the evidence and of the differing views taken by others. It was to emphasise this that my right honourable friends yesterday issued their draft Statement of principles. That Statement sets out afresh the principles which the partners in the education service have long endorsed in discharging their functions. The Government look to their education partners to endorse the principles, and to work together in applying them within our schools and colleges so that the education pupils receive is free of bias, distortion and indoctrination and is suited, as my noble friend said, to our free and open society.