§ 10.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay)My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ COMMONS AMENDMENTS
§ [The page and line refer to Bill (138) as first printed by the Commons.]
§ COMMONS AMENDMENT
§ 1 Clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out 'and assist in,' and insert 'assist in or carry out'.
The Earl of LindsayMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4. I shall concentrate first on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
During Committee stage in this House the noble Lords, Lord Ewing and Lord Carmichael, spoke with eloquence and with sincerity about those with special educational needs. The matter was raised again when this Bill was considered by another place.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I would expect the SQA to cater for those with special educational needs. Both SEB and SCOTVEC have a strong track record in that area.
This amendment therefore makes specific reference to SEN students in Clause 4(a). This power deals with the procedures adopted by establishments for assessing attainment rather than the audit of the effectiveness of these procedures dealt with in 4(b) which the noble Lords suggested. We feel that this is preferable.
We are committed to the principle that those with special educational needs should have the opportunity to gain fair access to qualifications. This amendment underlines that commitment and is the rationale behind Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 which deal with national testing. Since 1993, primary schools have implemented a system of national testing from P1 to P7, in line with the principles of the 5–14 curriculum development programme.
Overall testing rates in primary schools are now very respectable, taking into account the time that it takes most pupils to advance one level in the programme. Some 90 per cent. of primary pupils are now routinely tested, using national testing materials, as they progress through one of the 5–14 attainment levels. The concept of testing—so controversial in 1992—is now rightly regarded as part of good teaching practice. In primary schools, the enduring result of that period was a real commitment to implement testing as part of the 5–14 programme.
980 Primary schools in Scotland have performed on testing. But the secondary schools have not. Secondary schools were given an extra year to prepare for the introduction of testing; and the monitoring of testing rates only began in the 1994–95 session.
That delay should have meant that the secondary rates started at a decent level and rose swiftly. But the reality is that the rates of national testing in secondary schools are distressingly low.
For the latest available full year period, testing rates in the three tested areas of reading, writing and mathematics were, respectively, 9 per cent., 5 per cent. and 8 per cent. Several of the former education authorities reported testing rates in each of the subject areas of under 5 per cent. These rates are unacceptably low. And they have not appreciably improved over the past 18 months.
Although a significant number of schools are asking for national testing materials, very few indeed are actually doing national testing in the way the Government have asked for it to be carried out and in the way that education authorities themselves pledged to do back in 1993. And all the while, parents wait—wait to see results of their children's progress, as measured against nationally set standards.
Amendment No. 1 therefore extends the powers of the SQA in preparation for the extension of its role in national testing, while Amendment No. 4 makes substantive provision for testing regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ COMMONS AMENDMENTS
§ 2 Clause 4, page 3, line 15, after 'persons' insert '(and, in particular, such persons with special educational needs)'.
§ 3 Clause 21, page 10, line 29, at end insert—
§ "'special educational needs" has the meaning given by section 1(5)(d) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;'.
The Earl of LindsayMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 en bloc. I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 when moving Amendment No. 1
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 2 and 3.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ COMMONS AMENDMENT
§ 4 Before Clause 32, insert the following clause —
§ ASSESSMENT OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PUPILS
§ '. After section 2 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (Secretary of State may prescribe standards etc. for education authorities) there shall be inserted the following section—
§ "Assessment of secondary school pupils.
§
2A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the testing and assessment of pupils undertaking the first or second year of secondary education in public or self-governing schools.
981
(2) It shall be the duty of an education authority or a board of management to comply with the provisions of regulations made in pursuance of subsection (1) above.
(3) Regulations made in pursuance of subsection (1) above may make different provision as to different cases or circumstances.".'.
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
The amendment, sadly, is not well thought out. The Government successfully introduced a new Clause 32 to the Bill at Committee stage as an amendment to the Education (Scotland) Bill 1980 which would allow for the testing and assessment of children in the S1 or S2 of secondary education in public and self-governing schools. The tests will be run by the new Scottish Qualifications Authority and will be marked by external examiners. The Government's intention is to take regulations in April and introduce the new S1 and S2 tests in August 1997.
The amendment seeks to ensure that pupils are tested only with their parents' consent. It will enable parents to elect to have their children tested and will ensure that no children are tested without parental consent. This follows from the Secretary of State's assurance in the Commons on Second Reading that no pupil will be required to be tested if his or her parents do not wish it, and the amendment ensures that there is a statutory basis for that decision.
There are a number of serious concerns about the new proposals, but at this late hour I will not speak to them at great length and perhaps tire noble Lords even further. The timetables are tight and, even if there were a general election, an incoming government would inherit the regulatory framework. The question arises of the stress on children given the timescale and the fact that the tests are likely to be marked by an outside body. The implication is that primary schools are unable to assess pupils properly and that a basic entry assessment system is needed to offset that deficiency.
Primary school staff will try to prepare pupils for the test in S1. There are fears of a narrowing of the curriculum. I am not trying to reduce the importance of the subjects themselves, but too narrow a focus on reading, writing and mathematics at this stage of a child's career is not the best way to bring him forward to become a fully educated individual.
There are also considerable cost implications. Has the Minister any information on the costs that may be involved? We should consider the morale of staff already facing the (5–14) curriculum changes and the implementation of the Higher Still programme. That places a severe strain on staff. Our conclusion is that the intentions of the Government are clear but have been poorly thought out. I think that is evident by the late date at which such important changes to the Bill were introduced.
I am sorry that the Government have introduced this amendment and this whole attitude to testing. I am sad to say that, because I do not like education Bills, or any sort of Bills, to fail one after the other. But I am sure there will need to be yet another education Bill 982 sometime in the not too distant future. This amendment should not have been introduced, and certainly not at such a late stage. I cannot agree with it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.)
§ The Earl of Mar and KellieMy Lords, given the late hour I shall speak briefly. I believe that testing proves to be unpopular in Scotland because of the perceived threat to the comprehensive system of education and because of the perverse effects that the interpretation of high and low schools can have on pupils, their families and teachers.
The Earl of LindsayMy Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and to an extent the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that some of the details that have been mentioned, principally by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will come under the scrutiny of the consultation which my honourable friend the Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have promised will be carried out on the testing which will be introduced to secondary one and secondary two levels. Therefore, as regards the timetable between now and August 1997 when these tests will come into effect, that is exactly the sort of issue which the consultation exercise can address.
The noble Lord thinks there is undue stress being placed on children. Again that matter can be discussed between the education authorities and SEB—or SQA as it will become. I remind the noble Lord that testing is a regular feature now of primary school education. I am not sure that the sudden stress on children that the noble Lord imagines in secondary one and secondary two schools, will occur. I think that most children, not least my own, are used to those assessments being made.
I take issue with the implication of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, that reading, writing and arithmetic provide too narrow a focus on which to test a child. They are three basic requisites, which almost any child requires; therefore, the claim that it is too narrow a focus is one with which I could not agree.
The final point concerns costs. I assure the noble Lord that no additional burden will be imposed on education authorities. Indeed, my honourable friend the Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State both assured another place that the additional resources required for this will be given to SQA. Therefore, no additional burden will be imposed on the education authorities themselves.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, stressed that testing is unpopular. I would suggest that, given that primary school testing is now greeted by parents and, indeed, by the schools themselves, as a success, it would indicate that after the initial reservations of the parties opposite have been overcome these will also be welcomed by a large client group.
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveMy Lords, I must correct the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, if I have given him the wrong impression. I made a point of saying that the subjects of reading, writing and arithmetic are very important. All I implied was that these tests were narrowing matters down too much, so that if the pupils were being tested too often, particularly if they were external and national tests, it might force the schools to neglect other parts of the curriculum in order to concentrate on these subjects. Numeracy is, of course, incredibly important, but I do not like the idea that it may become the only important matter, so that there would be numerate people who did not have other skills, in an educational sense.
I do not necessarily wish the Minister to answer; I merely wish to make it clear that I was not attempting to suggest that those subjects were unimportant. They are very important, but so are other matters in the educational system. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of LindsayMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ COMMONS AMENDMENT
§ 5 Clause 32, page 18, line 42, after 'kilometers' insert `(2 miles)'.
The Earl of LindsayMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. In moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 insert imperial measurements as supplementary indications of distance in addition to the metric terms adopted in new Section 28A(3B) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (as inserted by Clause 32).
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 clarify the regulation-making power in new Section 28A(3C) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (as inserted by Clause 32) to prescribed maximum numbers of places which may be reserved for children of incomers to an area.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
§
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
6 Clause 32, page 18, line 43, after 'kilometers' insert `(3 miles)'.
7 Page 18, line 44, at end insert—
', and in paragraphs (a) and (b) the references to imperial measurements are supplementary indications of distance.'.
8 Page 19, line 2, after second 'number' insert 'or, as the case may be, such percentage of places at the school or relating to the particular stage of education'.
9 Page 19, line 7, at end insert '; and different numbers or, as the case may be, percentages may be prescribed under this subsection for the purpose of different cases or circumstances'.
The Earl of LindsayMy Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 en bloc, to which I have spoken with Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 9.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
§
COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 36, page 20, line 15, leave out subsection (7).
The Earl of LindsayMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This is a technical and procedural amendment, relating to Bills originating in this House. It will delete the privilege amendment inserted as subsection (7) of Clause 36 at Third Reading, as is normal practice.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(The Earl of Lindsay.) On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ 11 p.m.
§
COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 Schedule 5, page 30, line 14, at end insert—
`. After section 51(2B) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (provision of transport and other facilities) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2C) In considering whether to make any arrangements under subsection (1) above in respect of pupils attending schools, an education authority shall have regard to the safety of such pupils.".'.
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveMy Lords, I beg to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. The amendment may appear unnecessary because we all have views on school transport. We are grateful that it is provided on such a wide scale in so many parts of Scotland.
However, I wish to refer to the Government's proposed amendment to Section 51 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 relating to the provision of transport and the need to have regard to the safety of pupils.
On the face of it, this would appear to be a straightforward amendment enshrining in statute what is standard practice in Scottish education authorities. However, there are genuine concerns about the intent behind the amendment, which could have serious implications for councils, hence our desire for clarification from the Minister. The Minister has been helpful throughout the Bill at all stages, giving every piece of information that was asked for. We seek further clarification and the same courtesy from the Minister, which I am sure we shall receive.
The amendment as proposed generally, as already indicated, reflects current practice in education authorities, but it is unclear and could give rise to unrealistic expectations among parents. I hope that the Minister and his advisers will look carefully at the provision. As worded, it could be taken to refer to 985 individual pupils which it is assumed is not the case as this would clearly have unquantifiable financial repercussions for councils. For the sake of clarity, the amendment, we believe, should be reworded to read,
in respect of a pupil attending a school, an education authority shall have regard to the safety of such a pupil".In general, Scottish local authorities would prefer a retention of the status quo in respect of statutory references to the provision of school transport. As a minimum, however, a government assurance that the amendment is not intended to impose any new burdens on authorities would be most helpful. Perhaps the Minister will give us that assurance. I beg to move.Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.)
§ The Earl of Mar and KellieMy Lords, the Commons amendment seems to be aimed at curbing over-enthusiastic cutting back by unscrupulous local authorities. I find this rather strange, since Scottish local authorities are usually charged with overspending.
The Earl of LindsayMy Lords, the Scottish local authorities may lay themselves open to being charged with overspending because of the generous local authority settlement that they have received from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
However, underlying many of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is the assumption with which we agree: that it is good practice for education authorities to give appropriate consideration to safety issues when considering whether or not it is necessary to make school transport arrangements in respect of an individual pupil. That is exactly what many education authorities do. Therefore, the addition of the amendment to the face of the Bill will not impose any new burden on them because we are simply formalising a practice already followed.
However, where local authorities are failing to follow this good practice, additional costs would be involved. But we would simply be asking those local authorities which are failing to take safety into account when organising the transport of pupils in their area to do so. In that instance, we believe that it is a justifiable additional burden which should fall to local authorities, given that it is good practice that the consideration of safety should be taken into account.
The noble Lord made some other points which went much wider than the amendment with which we deal at present. The view of my honourable friend the Minister for Education at the Scottish Office is that this amendment is a very specific amendment on this one subject. It does not seek to deal with the wider implications that the noble Lord raised.
§ Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove:My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could he in any way quantify the additional costs that he suggested might be involved? They will be important to local authorities. Can he give us a percentage or a rough idea of whether they are 986 excessive? How do the Government intend to reimburse local authorities for something which has been caused by the Government, with the best of intentions, when they changed the rules in the middle of the game?
The Earl of LindsayMy Lords, our view is, first, that it is impossible to quantify the costs that a local authority may take on when it considers safety in the provision of transport for its pupils. Circumstances vary dramatically between areas and schools. We have deliberately introduced considerable flexibility into the amendments so that the widely diverse circumstances can be taken into account by each school, police force and the parents who will be involved in such situations.
The essential point is that any good local authority will, as a matter of good practice, already take into account the safety of pupils when deciding whether to offer transport. Therefore, for the authority there is no additional cost.
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveMy Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation which I will read in Hansard. It is rather late in the day to believe that anything else can be done with the Bill, so I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of LindsayMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
§
COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Schedule 5, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
'. After section 13(3) of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 (eligibility for self-governing status) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, where an education authority makes a proposal to discontinue a school by virtue of section 22A of the 1980 Act, no resolution shall be passed or request made under subsection (1) above during the relevant period.
(3B) The relevant period is whichever is the shorter of the period from the date when the education authority decides to consult persons in accordance with section 22A of the 1980 Act to the date the decision to discontinue the school is reached or—
The Earl of LindsayMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. This amendment limits the use of procedures for schools to seek self-governing status by school boards or parents simply to block school closures proposed by an education authority.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.