Child Safeguarding

Lord Framlingham Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a really interesting point. I am not aware of whether that is an aspect that the reviews will be looking into, but I will take it back to the department and if there is evidence, I am very happy to share it with the noble Lord.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, someone I know with great experience in these matters tells me that in the years before the involvement of social services, in a case of suspected child cruelty the first knock on the door would be from a policeman or a policewoman. Occasionally that resulted in a bit of embarrassment, but I think perhaps children’s lives were better protected in those days. Perhaps we ought to give this matter a little more thought.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I understand the spirit of my noble friend’s remarks. With respect to him, the thing that first the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and then others have brought out is the fact that so often in these cases different organisations, whether it be the school, the GP, the police or children’s services, have different snippets of information about a child. Critically, and very often, we need to share those to get an accurate picture of that child’s life.

Grammar Schools

Lord Framlingham Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, in 1938, Sir William Spens produced a report recommending a system of grammar schools, secondary modern schools and technical colleges, based on a system of selection. Following the 1944 Education Act this was adopted and it worked well. It was widely understood and accepted. After the war, the system was maintained by that wise man Clement Attlee and continued by subsequent Conservative Governments. In January 1964, there were 1,298 grammar schools, educating 22% of all pupils.

Then began the government interference, which led to the best education system in the world being reduced to the situation we have today where, despite the best efforts of everyone involved, 1.25 million children are receiving education euphemistically labelled “inadequate” or “requiring improvement”.

In 1965, Labour Education Minister Anthony Crosland told all grammar schools to convert to comprehensives. Most did; some held out. By 1979, they were teaching just 5% of our children. Finally, they were banned altogether by a Labour Government in 1998. Those brave survivors that held out have thrived and have been vindicated.

I have always been completely mystified by the amount of irrational and ill-informed animosity directed at the principle of selection in secondary education. Teaching classes of mixed ability is a complete educational nonsense. A few may go at the right speed for them but the high-flyer will be held back, the lower-flyers will flounder and the teacher’s time will be very badly spent. The only way to teach properly, with maximum benefit to both teacher and pupils, is to have classes containing as near as possible pupils of similar ability. This was recognised by everyone in education until 1965, and has been steadfastly held to by grammar schools, the best comprehensive schools and all our public schools, all of which select, stream and set. I find it fascinating that while parents are clamouring, competing and paying to get their children into schools, state or private, which select, stream and set, because this is acknowledged to provide the best education, so many people still set their faces against the principle of selection.

One of the arguments used against selection at 11 is that those who fail will be psychologically damaged and their life chances impaired. While it is true that any failure is disappointing, these effects can be greatly exaggerated and were certainly no justification for scrapping an entire education system. Children are stronger than we sometimes think and often understand better than we appreciate what the world is like and where they fit in. The job of parents and teachers alike is to stand by those who go in a different direction and to explain to them that, as we have heard from your Lordships today, there are many routes to fulfilment and happiness perhaps better suited to their talents, as exemplified by many famous people such as some of your Lordships.

Can our nation’s educational policy really be, “Because some will not succeed none must try”? How depressing. What a message to send to our young people and how gloomy for the long-term prospects of our country. The greatest asset of many poor children from educationally unaware families is their brain—their mind. Surely it cannot be right not to let them use it to the full.

This will be a permissive measure. It will not be obligatory and examinations can be taken at 14 and 16 as well as 11 to make it as accurate and fair as possible. Over recent years there has been a growing awareness that mistakes have been made and things need to change. There is little point in looking backwards, in recriminations or in fighting old battles. Valiant attempts are now being made to repair the damage done and I applaud the Government’s initiatives and effort. There can be no return to the past: nor should this be attempted. We now have many excellent schools of all shapes and sizes and they must be encouraged and supported. Grammar schools will grow because of their proven and acknowledged value, but this must not be at the expense of existing schools but in addition to and in co-operation with them to everyone’s benefit.

The former secondary modern schools and technical colleges were very good in their time and their modern equivalents are doing an excellent job. The revival and promotion of apprenticeships is a huge step forward. Not everyone is, or wants to be, academically inclined and the nation would not last five minutes without the knowledge and skills of our technicians, plumbers and electricians. We are interdependent and so should our schools be—different but with the same ambitions to provide for every child the maximum opportunity to make use of all their talents to allow them to follow the path most suited to their needs. Let us be positive about the future, but in order to do that and to go forward together it is important that we acknowledge the contribution that grammar schools made in the past and will make again in the future.

Grammar Schools

Lord Framlingham Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

The existing evidence is based on the system as it currently works, which is old technology and has undoubtedly resulted in binary choices in cases. We want to develop some new technology that embraces the selective system to result in a benefit to the whole education system.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that there is a grave danger of this House being as out of step with the country on grammar schools as it was on Brexit? The majority of people in the country understand the huge value of grammar schools—

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord Framlingham]

Noble Lords are making my point. The majority of people in the country are happy to see grammar schools reintroduced.

[Lord Nash]

We want to widen the choice for parents and there may well be areas where they would like to see more grammar schools.

Grammar Schools

Lord Framlingham Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I am fully aware that there is evidence to support the noble Lord’s case. There is also evidence to the contrary. We will look at this very carefully. Views are divided. It is obvious from today’s discussion that the issue is contentious. We are considering all our options and any decisions we make will be driven entirely by considerations of social mobility and that we have a schools system which works well for everyone.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that anyone who is concerned about the great lack of social mobility in recent years will be delighted at any possibility of the return of grammar schools? Their destruction was the major cause of the reduction in social mobility.

[Lord Nash]

As I say, we will look at all the considerations on both sides very carefully.

Education: Development of Excellence

Lord Framlingham Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Framlingham]

My Lords I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Perry for introducing this debate on what is an absolutely vital subject for our country. Our education starts on the day we are born and continues in one form or another until the day we die, but our more formal education starts when we learn to read—and the quicker and better this is done, the better chance we have throughout our education and our life. I want to speak about one issue that, at no extra cost, could transform our education system and the lives of thousands of children. I refer to teaching by the “cat sat on the mat” method, a phrase I plan to use throughout my remarks. The term of phonics for this method of teaching may be understood by many; conversely, it will not be understood by many. We should have a method that is understood by everyone. Keeping it simple and, in a way, repetitive is at the very heart of what I want to say.

“The cat sat on the mat” is not the only way to teach children to read but it is undoubtedly the best. All our children deserve nothing but the best and it naturally follows that the best should be the only way to give every child the best possible start. I understand the Government’s reluctance to give direct instruction from the centre to individual schools but the size of the problem surrounding learning to read demands that something be done immediately. A start has, I know, been made: Nick Gibb, who was until recently Schools Minister, did an excellent job and he believes firmly in “the cat sat on the mat”. Yet that start is not dynamic enough and time is not on our side.

There is rightly much talk and concern about child poverty, family break-ups, free school meals, equal opportunity and so on. There are no reasons why every single child should not be taught to read the best way and given the same start as everyone else. Over 20 years ago, when I was a Member of Parliament, two ladies came to my constituency surgery. They ran a private school specialising in remedial teaching at the primary stage. They came to beg me to persuade my local authority to use, as they did, only “the cat sat on the mat” in all schools. They brought tapes and booklets of their method and told me that, using that method, they were able to take children from a reading age of five to a reading age of to nine in two terms. Most importantly, they told me—this is hard to believe—that the local authority sent children to them to be brought up to speed by their method but would not use it in its own schools. Needless to say, I had a meeting with the chief education officer, and I am afraid that I got the muddled response that I have been hearing ever since, and which I hope will not be the Minister’s response today since it has led to our present problems.

The doubters say that there is more than one way to teach reading. That is true, but all use less effective methods. They say that circumstances may vary from child to child and school to school. This is true too, but the best method is the best, regardless of circumstances. They say that we must leave it to individual heads and teachers to decide. Why, when it is clearly not delivering the best chances for all our pupils? “The cat sat on the mat” may be rather more demanding of teachers, but the joy when the child takes off and enters the world of books is incredibly satisfying for teachers and pupils alike.

A wise man once said that all great issues are essentially very simple but we make them complicated when we do not want to face them. This is simple, costs nothing and would change the lives of thousands of children at once. I urge the Minister to do all he possibly can to persuade every primary school in the country to use the “cat sat on the mat” method as a matter of the greatest possible urgency.