Relationships and Sex Education
Helen Jones Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 235053 relating to relationship and sex education.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon.
It is often said that the British have a funny relationship to sex; we certainly have a very strange relationship to sex education, sometimes. We live in a society where explicit imagery, pornography and material that demeans and degrades women is available at a few clicks of a mouse, yet there are still some who resist teaching our children the facts about not only their own bodies, but emotions, relationships and all the things they need to keep them safe while they are young and to enable them to form healthy relationships as they get older.
I wondered why that was, so before the debate I had a look at some of the material circulating about these proposals. I must say that some of it misinterprets what the Government are proposing and is designed, I think, to alarm parents. The petition itself is not specific. It refers to
“certain sexual and relational concepts”—
I think that was designed to avoid the rules about material that is offensive to certain groups—and suggests that some of the material produced for children does “more harm than good”.
Let me say that there is absolutely no evidence for that whatever—zilch. In fact, the research that has been done, mostly in America, shows that young people who receive good relationships and sex education are less likely to form early sexual relationships, less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy, less likely to get pregnant early and less likely to get a sexually transmitted disease. For me, that is a whole series of wins.
However, we do not need to look far to find a great deal of propaganda directed at parents about this. I found on YouTube a programme called “The Makinations”, in which a presenter introduces a lady who he says is a teacher, and she presents a number of books that she says are available in schools. They then go on to object to those books. For instance, they object to one that I presume is intended to talk to young children about differences, which says that girls can have long or short hair; I am guilty of that. They also talk about gay people “posing”—their word, not mine—as parents, and about “state-sanctioned child abuse” and even “graphic cartoon porn”.
I found that chilling, but not for the reasons the authors intended. If stuff such as this is being directed at parents, I am not surprised that they become alarmed. Honestly, the fact is that it was vile and homophobic, but it was also not true. I speak in this debate not only as a parent, but as someone who used to be a teacher—in fact, two of us here, myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), have taught sex education in school, although in my case it was some time ago. Schools do not use books about a penguin with two daddies—the first penguin in the zoo with two daddies—with all children. They use them when children ask questions, or with children who might have two parents of the same sex, just as they would use a book about a single-parent family with a child who came from a single-parent family.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. I remember my mum telling me how frustrating it was, as a single parent, when she went to the bookshop to find some books about single parents and there was only one book about a little boy with a single mum and about building a bed. One book—and I was born in 1983. We have come a long way, but does she not agree that inclusive education on sexuality and all kinds of families is vital?
Helen Jones
I do, and I will come to that later in my remarks. Those of us who are long in the tooth will remember the controversy over a book called “Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin” in the 1980s. That book was available to teachers to use as necessary; it was not used routinely in schools.
It is important to say what is and is not being proposed by the Government. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 requires all maintained primary schools to teach relationships education, and all maintained secondary schools to teach relationships and sex education. Importantly, it qualifies that with the words “age-appropriate”, because teachers know that we cannot teach children concepts that their mind cannot grapple with. They simply do not take it in. Learning how children’s brains develop is part of a teacher’s training. We would be wasting our time trying to teach them things they cannot possibly understand at a young age.
Following the 2017 Act, the Government put out a call for evidence on the teaching of RSE and personal, social, health and economic education, and then issued draft guidelines last year. I have not yet seen the final guidelines—well, I have seen them, but they are under an embargo until the Secretary of State has finished his statement to the House. I will come on to that in a minute.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that under a whole load of international treaties, as our constituents rightly point out, parents have the primary responsibility for bringing up their children and they may have different views from those she is expressing? Does she think, and will the law provide, that parents still have the right to opt their children out of these classes—with the variation, I understand, that that now applies only up to three terms before they turn 16? Is that not the right compromise between these two issues?
Helen Jones
I will come to that later in my remarks, but of course my right hon. Friend is right that parents must play a major role in this. Most schools will want to work in co-operation with parents; we would be foolish to do anything else.
The Government issued draft guidelines for what should be taught in school, and it is important to look at how those draft guidelines work. In primary school, children should be taught about families, “people who care for me”, caring friendships and respectful relationships. They should be taught that there are different kinds of families and what to do if they feel unhappy or unsafe at home. That part is crucial because, although we hear much about stranger danger, let us remember that most children who are abused are abused within their own families. We must remember that. They need to learn about how to keep safe online and offline, and where to go for help.
I cannot honestly see a difficulty with that. Saying to young children that there are different kinds of families is only reinforcing what they know. They know from their own experience, from their own classes, that some children will have a mummy and daddy, some will only have a mummy or a daddy and some, increasingly, may have two parents of the same sex. That happens.
In secondary school, what is proposed is necessarily more complex. Children will be expected to learn about the importance of marriage and that it must be freely entered into, which is crucial given that some British young people are still experiencing forced marriage.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
This is a timely debate in a number of ways. I read somewhere today that the Secretary of State for Education implied that parents could actually opt out of this. Having said that, I know that my hon. Friend has looked at the guidelines. Do they take into consideration, for example, religious schools? Several parents from different strands of religions have written to me about this. Could my hon. Friend enlighten me?
Helen Jones
The guidelines do take that into consideration. I will come to that in a moment.
Young people in secondary schools also need to learn about consent, what constitutes a respectful relationship and what constitutes sexual violence and sexual harassment. They also need to learn why what they see online is often a distorted picture of healthy relationships, about grooming and sexual exploitation and, I understand, about female genital mutilation and why it is illegal. Again, that is crucial to keeping people safe.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Lady is making a really strong case. Given that health workers and schools already receive FGM guidelines that say withdrawal from sex education is an indicator of risk, does she agree that it is actually incredibly dangerous if we allow the opt-out to be used in this blanket fashion, because it could mean that vital information is not passed on?
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Helen Jones
I want to make a little progress.
One thing to note is that primary schools are not obliged to teach sex education, but it is recommended that they take steps to prepare children for puberty. As puberty happens much earlier in children now, that seems sensible. Crucially, on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), the guidelines say that schools must take into account the religious beliefs of their pupils when drawing up their programmes, and that faith schools may use their faith to inform their teaching. In fact, the guidance suggests that a dialogue should take place on issues regarded as contentious.
When I taught years ago, that is exactly what we did; it is not new in any way. I spent my teaching career in Catholic schools. We would teach—particularly our older children—what the Church taught and what others believed, and we would have a debate about it. There are good reasons for that. First, schools do not want to produce people who cannot put forward a rational argument, and faith schools certainly do not want to produce children who cannot defend their faith. Secondly, I have yet to find anyone who can stop a teenager arguing about any of this.
There are, of course, those who say that all this should be down to parents, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) mentioned. Parents are clearly crucial in all this and should be partners with schools. However, let us be honest: some parents do not do it, and some increasingly find themselves all at sea in dealing with online risks, domestic violence, grooming and so on. I was struck, even years ago, by the amount of wrong information and misinformation that children have in their heads. That was before the internet.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent presentation, as usual. Because of Ofsted’s powers and the way it deploys them, it is essential that we have total clarity about parental opt-outs and religious freedom. It is important in a debate such as this to understand that central to our unwritten constitution is the importance of religious freedom, as is the relationship between the state and parents. Because of those powers and their misuse in recent times by Ofsted, it is vital that the Government provide clarity. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Helen Jones
I do. As I said, all of this is about trying to reach a sensible and reasonable compromise between competing issues.
Helen Jones
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must make a little progress, because lots of people want to speak.
Before the internet, children had enough wrong information in their heads. With the rise of the internet and stuff available at a few clicks, it is essential that we give children a proper education that protects them from some of the wrong information and ideas online, and that shows them what good, healthy relationships look like. Research from the Children’s Commissioners shows that many of our young people do not know what a healthy sexual relationship looks like and do not understand the concept of consent. That is very dangerous. It is why four Select Committee Chairs wrote to the Government in 2016 asking for relationships and sex education to be made mandatory in schools; it is why the Women and Equalities Committee, in its inquiry into sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools, asked for the same thing; and it is why that request is supported by Members from across the House.
This is about applying a bit of common sense to this situation and looking at the world that our children are growing up in, which is not the same one that we grew up in. I say with great respect to parents who think that their children are not seeing all this online stuff that, although they may think that they are controlling what is on their children’s phones or iPads, they are not controlling what their children see with their friends or what is passed around in the playground and so on.
It is shocking that 28% of 11-year-olds have viewed pornography. Unless we want them to grow up thinking that what they see is normal and a proper relationship, we need to do something about it. By not doing anything, we are not leaving our children innocent. We are actually leaving them to the worst possible teacher: the internet.
Helen Jones
I really must make some progress. I am sorry.
Of course, many parents want schools to be involved in teaching RSE, as do many young people. Research done for Ofsted in 2013 showed that many secondary school pupils felt that too much of their education was on the mechanics of reproduction, and that there was not enough about emotions, relationships, dealing with pornography and so on.
Prior to the debate, the Petitions Committee met some young people in Parliament’s education centre. As one of them said to us, “If you’re opted out, you can just google it.” That is the problem we face; that is the reality of life. Nevertheless, it is true that parents have a right to request an opt-out from sex education for their child, which the guidelines say should be automatically granted in primary schools and should be granted except in exceptional circumstances in secondary schools. I was quite concerned about that, but I have actually been convinced by something sent to me by the Catholic Education Service, which supports the opt-out on the ground that it gives heads the opportunity to discuss with parents why the lessons are important and why it is much better for children to be there, rather than getting a garbled version from their friends in the playground. That approach clearly works, because the opt-out rate in Catholic schools is very low, at about 1 in 7,800 children. That is in a faith-based education system.
That opt-out applies to the sex education element, not to personal, social, health and economic education or relationships education, and not to stuff in the science curriculum, which is part of the national curriculum. It is also true—certainly in the draft guidelines and I presume the formal ones—that the Government suggest that children can opt back in three terms before they reach the age of 16. Case law no longer supports an automatic and continuing opt-out, so we need to reach a sensible balance on when young people can decide for themselves.
All parents face this problem, whether in deciding when children can go to the shops on their own or when their children are deciding on a career. It is hard. I remember the first time we allowed my son to walk up the road on his own to post a letter; we were hanging out of the bedroom window, keeping an eye on him for as long as possible. However, as parents, we have to realise that, while our job is to try to set our children on the right path, they will eventually make their own choices, which may not be the same ones that we would make.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Lady; she has been very generous. Of course she is right to say that good parents take the view that she has just described about their children. Much the best way of growing up to be a well balanced, kind, caring and loving person is to have well balanced, kind and caring parents. It is in the home that people’s ideas are first shaped and formed, notwithstanding the influences to which they are subject later on. For that reason, parents and parental choice are critically important.
Helen Jones
Yes. As I have said, parents are vital to all of their child’s education, but particularly to relationships and sex education, and good schools want to work in partnership with parents. However, unless we allow our children to make choices, they will not develop the skills and the emotional resilience that they need in adult life, and I think that what the Government have suggested is a reasonable compromise.
So what is the problem? I think, from the correspondence that I have had, that it centres on the teaching of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. Let us be honest, there is nothing new about this. Since 2010, schools have had a duty under the Equality Act of that year to deliver an inclusive and non-discriminatory curriculum, and many schools have gone further than that. I will refer again to a Catholic school, simply because that is the system I know. Cardinal Newman high school in Luton, for instance, has had all its teachers trained in LGBT and gender issues, so that they can tackle bullying and ensure that they give children the right guidance.
In the end, this is actually not about what someone called background indoctrination. We cannot indoctrinate someone to be gay any more than we can indoctrinate someone who is gay to be heterosexual, although practitioners of some very nasty conversion therapies have tried in the past. This is about respect for difference and recognising that we live in a pluralistic free society. If I demand respect for my faith, which is a minority faith in this country, I have to give the same respect to other people’s faith, but also to the choices that other people may make in life. This is about tackling bullying: 45% of LGBT people have been bullied at school. That has to end. Young people have to know that whoever they are, whatever their sexuality, they will be welcomed and cared for.
Most schools and, I think, most parents, whatever their background or religious affiliation, would have no problem whatever with that, but there has been a lot of misinformation going around, so I say to parents who are concerned, “First, talk to your child’s teachers. Go in; don’t let other people tell you what they are doing. Go and have a look at the materials they are using. Go and talk to them about what they are trying to achieve. And you will see that there is very little to worry you there.”
I say to the Minister—this is not a phrase often heard from my lips—that I think the Government have got this about right. There is the right to an opt-out in certain circumstances. There has to be a right for children to opt in at some stage, and I think that the Government have got the age for that about right—in other words, just before they leave school. I also say to parents, “Trust your children. If you have brought them up with the right values and the right perspectives on life, you have nothing to fear from this.” It really is about creating a society in which we can respect one another, respect our differences and work together. At a time when society seems to be becoming more and more polarised and people are shouting at one another on social media all the time, that is a sensible and reasonable thing to do and is good for all of us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Caroline Lucas
I very much welcome the statement from the Chief Rabbi about stamping out bullying on any ground, including LGBT. That is an incredibly strong call, and it is very important. In terms of weighing religious freedoms with the rights of the child, I still do not see a contradiction. We are talking about keeping children safe and ensuring they have the confidence they need to be able to raise concerns. I do not see why there has to be a contradiction in terms of religious belief. I hope we can find a way through. I think there are a number of misconceptions about what RSE is about. It absolutely is not about any kind of preferred lifestyle or indoctrination. At its best, hopefully, it is about a shared exploration with parents and teachers to keep our children safe.
Helen Jones
Perhaps it might help the hon. Lady if I gave an example. The Catholic Church does not support same-sex marriage. That does not prevent Catholic schools from teaching that same-sex marriage is allowable in this country; nor does it prevent them from teaching about gay rights.
Caroline Lucas
That teaching is allowable and legal, and the legal arrangement is as acceptable as any other in this country. That is an incredibly important clarification, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for stating it.
As we know, bullying does exist. Huge evidence has been gathered by Stonewall that nearly half of lesbian, gay, bi and trans pupils are bullied for being LGBT at school. To quote Kieran, aged 18:
“I have been bullied since Year 2 for being gay. People called me names like ‘gay’ and ‘faggot’ before I even knew what they really meant.”
There have been recent reports that teachers in Birmingham have faced protests, threats and email abuse over relationships education. I was very sad to read that, and I very much hope that Ministers will use the power they have over the regulations and guidance to show calm and confident leadership. The Minister will know from what I have said so far that I do not support the opt-out, grateful though I am that we are finally moving forward with compulsory RSE. In my final words, I echo the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who was calling for, at the very least, monitoring of what happens with the opt-out. I am deeply concerned that it could be those young people who need and could benefit the most from this kind of education who will not get it, and that is a cause of real concern.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for leading this important debate today.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and applaud the powerful contribution she made. She set out clearly and articulately very sensitive and difficult issues. Like her, I have a Muslim background, and the way in which she set out the issues is really worth applauding, and I am grateful to her. The only downside is that she made many of the points that I wanted to make in my speech. However, I am conscious that there are others yet to speak, so I will shorten my speech accordingly and not repeat too much of what my hon. Friend said.
Like my hon. Friend, in recent weeks I have been contacted by many of my constituents who have expressed concerns about the proposals, and I want to put their concerns on the record today. They are absolutely clear, as am I, that the need to teach our children respect for others and tolerance, as well as how to be safe, particularly in the modern era with all the safeguarding challenges that technology and social media now bring, must remain a key consideration. However, their concerns are understandable because, as has been mentioned by hon. Members from across the Chamber, the policy has been poorly communicated to parents and schools.
Despite running for several months, the consultation process was not made known to many parents, and even schools were unaware it was running. Only now, with the implementation of the policy rapidly approaching, have parents and schools been made aware of its existence. They are deeply upset that they did not have a chance to get involved in and contribute to the consultation.
As we have heard from today’s speakers, everybody agrees that this is a sensitive issue. Much better engagement with parents is warranted, and that needs to be handled carefully, with a proper, meaningful consultation, carried out in a well informed manner. Sadly, that did not happen, and parents have concerns that they feel have been left unanswered.
Parents have also expressed concerns to me regarding the age-appropriateness of what will be taught in schools. They tell me that they are apprehensive that the content, which we do not know the details of, will not be suitable for primary school children.
Imran Hussain
Not at the moment, because we are on the clock and I have a number of points that I want to get on the record. I may give way later.
Throughout the existing education system, the age-appropriateness of the curriculum is woven in alongside the maturity, understanding and preparedness of the children in question. To some degree, that question of preparedness and maturity is why primary school children do not sit GCSEs or A-levels. That is just one example; hon. Members have given a number of others that demonstrate that point. Age-appropriateness and preparedness must be central, yet right now there is no indication or absolute guarantee that content will be age-appropriate and suitable for primary school children.
Imran Hussain
I will not.
Parents are also concerned about the faith-appropriateness of the content that will be taught. Importantly, parents of all faith backgrounds are high- lighting those concerns. It is not an issue for a single faith community, but one for the religious community as a collective. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood made some pertinent points about certain sections of faith communities feeling polarised and perhaps isolated in some contexts. Let us be clear: faith is, and should be, a protected characteristic that must be respected and considered whenever policy changes are made in any walk of life, including education.
I cannot emphasise enough the value of the involvement and inclusion of parents in any education policy—another point that many Members have touched on. If children are to be successful in life and to do well at school, they need not only good schools, but involved parents. We cannot leave out parents or neglect them. Parents are the final custodians of their children, making decisions on their behalf until they can responsibly make their own. That is backed up by article 14 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which states:
“Governments must respect the rights and responsibilities of parents to guide their child as they grow up.”
Ultimately, any education policy must have parental oversight and include parents, complementing the work that they do at home, with their involvement and consent. I urge the Minister, after hearing the concerns of parents in my constituency and in those of other hon. Members, to consider carefully all the concerns that I have raised on their behalf, and to ensure that the involvement and consent of parents in the education of children is upheld and maintained as vital and fundamental.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Initially, the regulations will not apply to Northern Ireland, although I suspect that eventually they will. However, even though they will not apply in my constituency, I nevertheless believe that there is a fundamental issue here that Members of Parliament, regardless of where they come from, need to address.
Many arguments have been made about the importance of relationships and sex education, and the benefits of it. One thing that strikes me is that the catalogue of increased domestic violence, sexually transmitted infections, domestic abuse and so on that we have faced has come against a background of increasing sex and relationships education in schools over the years. If anyone thinks that the regulations will be a panacea, we must disabuse them of that thought.
Sammy Wilson
No, I will not take any interventions, because other people wish to speak.
The core issue is the freedom of individuals and families to make decisions about what the appropriate teaching for their youngsters is. There is an irony that, on the one hand, parents can withdraw their youngster from education totally and teach them at home, but when it comes to this one particular aspect of education the right to opt out is severely curtailed. That strikes me as very odd, especially for something so sensitive.
Many parents have written to me expressing concerns, and have expressed them in briefings that I have been given, that the state is taking away from them the responsibility that they believe ultimately rests with them. Parents may well decide that the relationships education that their children are receiving in school is appropriate; however, if they decide that it is not something that they want their youngster to be taught, the right to withdraw has been taken away from them.
It is also significant that most of the publicity surrounding this matter has been about lesbian, bisexual and gay relationships; when interviewed on Radio 4, the Ofsted chief inspector zoned in on that aspect. For some parents, those are not the kind of relationships that they want their children to be taught about by a stranger. If they are going to talk about those things, parents want the ability to teach their youngsters about that themselves. At least they would have control over what was taught in that instance.
Helen Jones
It has been a very interesting debate, and I thank all those who contributed to it. We heard some powerful personal testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) exactly how such education should be conducted in schools, in partnership between the school and parents. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) what happens when that process breaks down, although I would point out that at the moment schools are not working under the guidelines; it is a completely different set of circumstances.
We also heard from those with concerns about the policy. However, I wish that they would set out exactly what those concerns are, because I suspect—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) would have been able to tell me if he had given way to me—that many of the concerns that parents have relate to what they have been told about what is happening, rather than what is happening itself. Schools are still undergoing the process of developing the curriculum and the materials that they will use. We also heard the views of the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), including his view that domestic violence has not subsided. I do not know how he can make that point, because domestic violence was not even considered a crime for many years.
All in all there is great support for what the Government are doing. We hope that they will provide the resources and support for teachers to implement it properly. I look forward to seeing more of our children being kept safe and able to form healthy, good relationships in future.
GCSE English Literature Exams
Helen Jones Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 200299 relating to GCSE English literature exams.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.
The more perceptive among us will remember that we have been here before. We debated this issue just before the general election. I think it was on the last full day of business. Understandably, the debate was rather rushed and the Petitions Committee did not have time to do any public engagement on the matter.
When we received a new petition in this Parliament, we therefore decided to schedule it for debate and to conduct some public engagement. We had a huge response, showing that people believe that how we examine and test pupils’ knowledge is not just a technical matter; it says much about the things we think are important—the skills and knowledge that we value. People are also increasingly worried about the mental health of our young people. I will come to that later.
There are many exam systems throughout the world, and they do not necessarily relate to the success or failure of the education system. On the one hand, there are systems such as those used in Singapore and Hong Kong, where there is rigorous and frequent testing. Those are very good at some things—there is no doubt about that. However, when I was in Singapore some years ago, people asked us how to teach creativity, because they thought they had ironed that out of their system. On the other hand, in Finland nobody sits an exam until they are 16 and it is viewed as one of the best education systems in the world—on some measures, the best. I do not say that because I think Ministers can import exam systems from elsewhere. In fact, over the years we have had far too much of Ministers going abroad and trying to bring in a system from a completely different cultural background. I am simply saying that how we examine is a choice—one choice among many.
It is clear from the feedback that both parents and teachers are worried about the impact of frequent testing and the type of testing we have on young people’s mental health. Way back in 2016, what was then the Association of Teachers and Lecturers did a survey of its members. Over half of the respondents said that they knew one student who had tried to self-harm. One of the teachers said that there had been
“a huge increase in physical symptoms of stress and incidents of self-harm.”
On the other hand, the chief inspector of schools has told The Times Educational Supplement that it is a “myth” that children in England are over-tested. It is difficult to know who to believe: the teachers who are on the ground every day or a chief inspector with no teaching qualifications at all, whose nomination was rejected by the Select Committee on Education. I will leave people to make their choice.
It is true that there is a lot of mental ill health among young people today. The charity YoungMinds published figures showing that one in four children and young adults displays symptoms of mental ill health, and that one in 10 children and one in five young adults has a diagnosable mental health disorder.
When we did our public engagement on this subject, we found that mental health was an issue for many people. We carried out some public engagement with pupils from Christ the King Catholic High School in Preston, to whom we are very grateful. Our staff used those responses to design an online survey for students, teachers and parents. There were extra boxes for teachers to allow them to make comments. We had more than 16,300 responses. Of the students involved, 54% said that they thought about exams most of the time and 53% said that they were stressed most of the time because of their exams.
Interestingly, that was not the prime reason for people wanting a change in the system. The main reason was that they felt exams tested memory rather than understanding —77% of students and 84% of teachers told us that. That gives people like me pause. I grew up in a system—like most people here, I suspect—where memory was important. We had to remember lots of things for exams. I was lucky: I did not find it particularly difficult. However, we need to ask not what was suitable for us, but what is suitable for the next generation. We need to ask ourselves, is it really necessary to have so much emphasis on memory in a society where information is available at the touch of a button? That question hardly ever gets asked in our system.
We are often dependent—this has happened under both political parties—on the whims of whichever Secretary of State for Education happens to be in office at the time. We all remember the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who decided that history should be “our island story”, ignoring the fact that that story is probably seen very differently in different parts of these islands and by different communities within them. He also took a sudden dislike to “Of Mice and Men” being on the curriculum. I do not know why—perhaps he was hit over the head with a Steinbeck novel when he was small and has been traumatised ever since.
Because of that, we have seen frequent changes to our exam system. We had the English baccalaureate. We had tiering, which came and went. We had coursework and then the abolition of coursework. Then we had linear courses with exams at the end. It is no surprise, therefore, that the current Secretary of State has had to promise teachers that there will be no more changes, in an attempt to woo people into the profession. Frankly, I am surprised there are any teachers left. In all this noise, what does not get asked is, what do children need to learn and how do they need to learn it to fit them for the society that they are growing up in, rather than the one that we grew up in?
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I have a terrible memory problem. I can barely remember one thing from one day to another. The reason for the change we have made is to try to raise standards. Has the hon. Lady considered the impact of this change on standards?
Helen Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I will come to it later. I do not think that there is any evidence that that change raises standards per se. In an exam, we measure certain things. The question is, are we measuring the right things?
In saying that, I am not at all an advocate of dumbing down. When I taught English, my students studied Shakespeare from when they came into secondary school, they read “Beowulf”—in translation, I hasten to add; I was not trying to teach 12-year-olds old English—and they read Chaucer, even when they were not in the exam. Ironically, the evidence we are getting from a lot of teachers is that the emphasis on drilling people for an exam, and the tyranny of that, is sucking creativity out of the system and narrowing people’s focus, rather than widening it. While I do not believe that any great literature is inaccessible if it is taught in the right way, I am an advocate of asking the right questions. An English degree teaches one to do that. That cannot be expressed in monetary terms, in the way some people would have it, but it is a useful skill.
One question is whether what children learn and the way they are tested is the right way forward. At the moment, they have to study a Shakespeare play—I do not think anyone would argue with that; Shakespeare is our leading dramatist—and 15 poems, with most teachers thinking there is a reasonable selection that engages children. They need to study a 19th-century novel. That gives me pause for thought—why the 19th century? It was not when the novel began or when most of the experimentation was done. They then study another text—a modern text or a play—and they have to do unseens as well. We test them on all that literature at the end of the course. There is no coursework or interim exams. We have to ask whether that is the right way forward.
When this system was first mooted, Ofqual said:
“We do not believe there are any skills in the draft content for English literature that could not be validly assessed by written exam, set and marked by the exam board.”
No doubt that is true of what is in the curriculum, but the issue is whether that is the right thing to be testing. From what they have said, the Government seem to have what I can only describe as a rather strange approach. At one point they said:
“Students should not be misled into believing that they will get good marks simply by memorising and writing out the poems or texts they have studied.”
I hope not—that has never been the case in any English literature exam. However, they went on to say:
“Students will not need to learn and remember the exact words of poems or texts by heart.”
I am afraid that misunderstands the subject. In great literature, the exact words are important. Great writers choose words with precision, rejecting alternatives. An approximation will not do, because it does not have the same levels of meaning. When studying English literature, or any literature, the exact words matter. To suggest otherwise is to downgrade the subject. It shows what the Government say they do not want: a lack of academic rigour. In this exam, are our young people facing a test of memory or of understanding?
All literature exams involve some feat of memory. Students have to get to know the text well; they have to read it, re-read it and internalise it. Nor can we take the stress out of exams completely. In fact, some stress is good for us. We have to face stress in life and learn to deal with it. The young people who responded to our survey recognised that. Many suggested that they should have more education in how to deal with stress. Nor is all stress that our young people suffer because of exams. There are lots of stresses in modern life that impact on young people and create a toxic environment for them. I am not by any means suggesting that here, but I am suggesting that unnecessary stress is caused because of the emphasis on memory.
The teachers who responded to our survey were very clear that the exam is in large part about memory. One said:
“The argument that students do not need to quote is simply untrue”.
Another said:
“I have found it to be more of a memory test for my pupils.”
One teacher pointed out that to analyse the language in a text, students have to remember it. They have to be able to remember the rhyme schemes in poems to compare them, and doing so is in the mark scheme. The fear among many teachers was that this was sucking the joy out of the subject. As one said:
“We are systematically sucking the love of literature and poetry out of students.”
Another said:
“We are killing their love of English.”
In the current system, we have an examination that imposes unnecessary stress—as I said, some stress is inevitable—on students; that relies largely on memory, rather than on understanding; and that, according to many teachers who responded to us, is not fostering a love of literature at all, but killing it. If, in an exam, students are going to analyse character in a novel, compare two poems or contrast two scenes in a play, they have to remember them. On the other hand, if there are open-book exams with clean texts, more questions can be asked. Contrary to what the Government think, it is arguable that open-book exams test higher levels of skill. We could actually start to ensure that questions are designed to bring out the best in the brightest students. The Government seem to want to do that, hence their new grading system, but are unwilling to will the means.
An open-book exam allows students to evaluate, analyse and synthesise knowledge, rather than simply remember it. Many teachers who responded to us felt that the current system, far from what was intended, does not allow their brightest students to display what they can do sufficiently well. Open-book exams are far from an easy option. A lot of work still has to be done on the text beforehand. At a very basic level, the students have to know where to look in order to finish on time. Most of the teachers who responded thought that it was a better system. One said that
“open book exams allow for questions that explore deeper understanding of ideas, historical context, inference and themes”.
By contrast, one teacher who recently retired, but had 37 years’ experience teaching English, which should be respected, said that the current curriculum
“narrows and stultifies their thinking—and their lessons”.
Arguably, open-book exams would not only ask more demanding questions of students, but put them in a situation that is closer to what they will experience in real life. No academic writes a paper without reference to anything else, purely from memory. No one writes a business report or prepares a submission like that. We all have access to texts and information while we do such things. I do not even think that the exams prepare our young people properly for employment. Interestingly, one of our respondents told us:
“As an employer as well as a parent, the skills I’m seeking in employees are the ability to analyse, to infer, to construct an argument and so on, not whether they can remember entire texts.”
Of course, students are not asked to remember entire texts in the exam, but they are asked to remember a large part of them.
With respect to the Government and the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), who talked about standards, we would be able to test higher levels of ability better with a different kind of examination. When I was teaching, I noticed that it was possible for my best students not to do as well in their GCSE exams as they would do at A-level, where they were allowed to do much more analysis on their own. The Government are falling into a trap of thinking that what we have done in the past is the best way for the future.
When I was training to be a teacher, everyone knew a story about the sabre-toothed curriculum. It was about a tribe that taught its children to hunt sabre-toothed tigers, trap little woolly mammoths and fish in the river, until the ice came and the sabre-toothed tigers moved away, the little woolly mammoths died and the river iced over. But the tribe still taught its children to hunt sabre-toothed tigers, trap little woolly mammoths and fish in the river. One day, an iconoclast among the tribe said, “Why are we doing this? There aren’t any sabre-toothed tigers, little woolly mammoths or fish in the river.” The elders said, “We don’t do it because we want our children to hunt sabre-toothed tigers, trap little woolly mammoths and fish in the river. We do it because it is character building.” The tribe carried on doing that, and died.
The lesson for examinations is simple. We need to look at what will equip our children for the future, not for the past. I hope the Minister will think seriously about that, because the evidence from people trying to work in the system is that it is far from satisfactory.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come on to the specifics of that later.
Through reading, pupils develop cultural literacy— my hon. Friend is an example of someone with great cultural literacy—and the shared knowledge that connects our society. Reading also helps to create shared bonds. From understanding references to a Catch-22 situation to sharing knowledge of Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”, literature contributes much to the underpinning ties that hold us together.
It is important that pupils have the opportunity to study a range of high-quality, intellectually challenging and substantial texts from our literary heritage. The new and more rigorous GCSE in English literature requires pupils to read and understand a wide range of important texts across many eras. Under the old GCSE, pupils were examined on four texts at most. Some were examined on only three: two texts and a poetry anthology or anthologies. There was no requirement for pupils to be asked questions on texts they had not previously studied —unseen texts—although exam boards could use them if they wished. The remaining texts were covered through controlled assessment, which is a form of coursework. Ofqual decided that new GCSEs in the subject would be assessed entirely by exam, as that is a more reliable and fairer method.
The new English literature GCSE requires pupils to study a range of high-quality, challenging and substantial texts, including at least one Shakespeare play; one 19th-century novel; a selection of poetry since 1789, including representative Romantic poetry; and fiction or drama from the British Isles since 1914. The requirements for poetry and a novel from the 1800s are new and add more breadth and rigour to the qualification. There is also a requirement for pupils to study no fewer than 15 poems by at least five different poets with a minimum of 300 lines of poetry in total. That element is designed to ensure that pupils gain a deep understanding of literature and read widely throughout the course. As my hon. Friend said, pupils are not required to learn the poems by heart. Instead, the purpose of studying a wide range of poetry is to develop an appreciation of the form and to support pupils to understand the importance of literature across the ages.
Helen Jones
Will the Minister explain how pupils can analyse language in the exam without remembering the language used?
Helen Jones
There have been interesting contributions to the debate. I particularly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) for talking about the higher-level learning that can be tested in open-book exams. That is perhaps what the Minister missed when he responded to the debate.
All of us want to see standards rise, but to equate rising standards with a particular form of examination is to confuse two different things. The question is always about what we are testing. I note that the Minister said pupils do not have to use quotes, but then said there will be extra marks for the intelligent use of text and quotes, which is precisely why teachers need to teach their children to memorise a lot of the text—because they want them to get high marks.
We could do much better by our children. That does not mean abandoning a shared cultural heritage. Teachers are telling us that they are seeing fewer children applying to do A-level English because they have been put off by what is now expected of them in GCSE English literature.
The Minister illustrated the importance of the exact words when he referred to our understanding of things such as Catch-22. When Heller wrote the book he first called it “Catch-14”. When he was asked why he changed it, he said that 22 was funnier than 14, which illustrates exactly why the exact words are important.
If we are to test students at a higher level to enable our best students to show what they can do, we should move away from making our exams so much a test of memory and towards encouraging our children to do more analysis and evaluation of the text and to develop the skills that they will need in their future lives.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 200299 relating to GCSE English literature exams.
Schools Update
Helen Jones Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
I believe that I can, in the sense that we are going beyond saying that no schools will lose out as a result of the formula, and are saying that every school will gain at least 0.5% additional as part of the introduction of the school formula. It is important for me to be clear that the way we are introducing it is through working with local authorities. They therefore will put their own formula—the final allocation—to schools, but we will be very clear that what we are giving them means that no school need lose out, and in fact, further than that, every school should be able to gain.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Warrington is one of the lowest funded authorities in the country, yet schools in my constituency were still losing out under the funding formula the Secretary of State had proposed, and were preparing to sack teachers and teaching assistants. Can she confirm that she still does not regard these as underfunded schools, and that the 0.5% increase will not meet the costs imposed on them by staff pay rises, the apprenticeship levy and general inflation, and that pupils in those schools will still lose out?
Justine Greening
At this stage, the hon. Lady might be better off lobbying her those on her own Front Bench. What I have set out today will mean that her schools get a better settlement than they would had her own party won—disastrously, in my opinion— the last election.