Education Bill

Baroness Sharp of Guildford Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

Amendment 85A and Amendment 86B, in my name and that of my noble friend, relate to Clause 24. Among other things, the clause transfers some of the functions of the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency to the Secretary of State—principally, those functions to do with the approval of attainment targets and the development of the national curriculum and supporting materials. Having already debated the demise of a number of non-departmental public bodies and outside agencies in the course of the Bill, noble Lords may think that, among the many important issues concerning us, it is not a priority to take up this issue with the Government. This is not simply about saving another quango. It is important to understand what the process will be for changing the national curriculum if the QCDA or some other similar, independent body does not exist—as will be the case if Clause 24 is approved unamended.

The argument deployed in the other place in support of the abolition of the QCDA was that, to quote Nick Gibb,

“responsibility for the curriculum has always rested with the Secretary of State, both under the previous Administration and this, and nothing is changing as far as that is concerned. The QCDA simply acted on behalf of Government in advising and helping to design the curriculum and, as such, no functions are transferring from the QCDA to the Department”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 24/3/11; col. 642.]

This is a partial and one-sided claim. Most importantly, it fails to acknowledge the very important element of independence and transparency, if not to the final decision which the Secretary of State of the day will take but to the process of review, and of recommendation and advice to the Secretary of State that ought in my view to precede any changes to the curriculum. There has in fact been an unbroken history of statutory advisory bodies on such matters since the Board of Education Act 1899. The first specific statutory NDPB to advise on the curriculum and assessment was established under the Education Reform Act 1988. Since then, this role has been continued by one such body or another—and for good reasons.

In 1988, in the debate on the establishment of that first statutory non-departmental body, one of the most respected educationists of the 20th century, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, drew an analogy with the role of the national curriculum in Germany in 1935 in establishing Nazism. This may be an overly dramatic analogy for the House of Lords in 2011, but the independence of advice on curriculum and assessment has always been an important point of principle for this House in its debates. Current Ministers are prepared to change or influence the curriculum without the transparency of that independent advice or evidence. For example, noble Lords may be aware of the systematic change that has occurred in the guidance to primary schools, in which every reference in the text to “phonics”, introduced by the previous Government, has, without discussion, been changed to “synthetic phonics”. Also, the Government’s unilateral introduction of the prescriptive EBacc shows unusual levels of willingness to interfere.

This clause opens the door to any future Secretary of State directly to change the national curriculum in a way that is either politically motivated or, more likely, implements the pet theories or hobby horses of Ministers. Again, there is concern that we are already beginning to witness that, with views being expressed that, for example, history should be about the rote learning of Kings and Queens and their dates, and in the view of the current Minister for Schools that education should principally be about core knowledge—and core knowledge as he defines it. I am not saying that those are not valid views—they may indeed be valid—but they are contested by a wide range of views in the profession. That contest and debate about what is important ought to be transparent during any process of review.

Amendments 85A and 85B would try to ensure that the Secretary of State must demonstrate that the process of review of the national curriculum is independent of government. That would provide assurance to parents and pupils about the content of the curriculum. Amendment 86 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who cannot be here today, would require an advisory board to ensure some independence. In their amendment, they are trying to reach the same point.

The department issued a statement which, I suspect, was meant to allay our fears, but it compounds them. Although the Secretary of State of the day will make the final decisions about the national curriculum, what matters is the process of consultation and review—its comprehensiveness, impartiality, scope, transparency, the independence of the analysis of the responses, and the recommendations then made to the Secretary of State, who may or may not accept them. Unless the process of reviewing consultation is independently conducted so that people can be assured that it is comprehensive and takes into account all the views, and that someone independent of government is trying to make sense of it to formulate an analysis and recommendation, then following the demise of the QCA with no other body taking its place, all that I have mentioned would be under the control of the Secretary of State and civil servants. They would decide who to consult, which evidence was reported publicly and the conclusions to be drawn—and all potentially supporting the decisions that the Secretary of State originally wanted to make.

I contend that that cannot be right. Whether it is the QCDA or another body, surely an independent body must be in charge of the process of consultation. The results will then rightly be handed to the Secretary of State of the day, who will make the decision and be accountable for them. It is important that everyone—all of us and the parents and public— can see the basis on which those important decisions are made.

I will draw another analogy. It occurred to me whether we would ever think about doing this as regards health. I wonder whether, if there were a review of the best and most effective treatments for cancer, we would contemplate giving the whole process to the Secretary of State and to officials in the department, rather than to a representative body of professionals and others to form an independent evaluation of the efficacy of treatments and make recommendations to the Secretary of State. We so easily seem to slip into the assumption that with education we can do things that we would not dream of doing with other professional bodies. This point has been raised before. I ask the Minister to comment in his summing up on the points I have made, but also to explain how the Government can justify this degree of control over this process by an elected politician. I beg to move Amendment 85A.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I have been asked by my noble friend Lady Walmsley to speak in support of Amendment 86, which is in her name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. By laying this amendment, we wish to reiterate the importance of the Secretary of State having the benefit of independent advice on changes in the national curriculum. This picks up the points which have just been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes.

My noble friend Lady Walmsley is very grateful indeed to the Bill team who have briefed her about the processes taking place, and above all about the transparency that currently exists between the Secretary of State and the QCDA, and the fact that these will remain under the new proposals. However, the note that the team provided says:

“Following the passage of the Education Bill, the Secretary of State will remain responsible for making proposals to change the national curriculum and will still be able to ask another body to advise him if he wishes to do so”.

It is the phrase “if he wishes to do so” that bothers us from the Liberal Democrat stance. We would like to ensure that the Secretary of State always takes advice from experts on these matters. As we heard last Monday, the curriculum is vital, and other countries are not as fixated as we are on what exactly is taught. The high level of prescription in this country goes somewhat counter to the claims that teachers are trusted as professionals. In other countries, the design of the curriculum is very different from the one that seems to be emerging in this country when we look at the remit for the expert panel which are to advise the Secretary of State.

In Singapore, for example, core values are emphasised. These are self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship management, and responsible decision-taking. One cannot imagine all of this being delivered without the compulsory teaching of life skills, and indeed if we look in detail, this is exactly what we find: at the core are things like health education, PSHE, citizenship, global awareness and physical education. Surrounding these are knowledge skills—which include languages—maths and science, and, lastly, humanities and the arts.

In New Zealand, the key competencies are critical thinking and problem solving, using languages, symbols and texts, managing self and relating to others. In Australia, there are three core interrelated strands which include heath and physical education, personal and interpersonal development and citizenship interwoven with subject knowledge and cross-curricular skills. Indeed, thinking processes are included in nearly all these curriculums, and these are three very successful education systems which I think we can learn from.

However, none of these issues seems to emerge in the remit for the expert review panel; it mainly talks about knowledge and facts. We would like to know how the panel’s remit has been arrived at. The note from the Bill team says that the remit is always very important, and we can well believe that. But looking at it, we rather doubt whether what comes out will be anything like the curriculum of those very successful countries. This is one reason why this particular amendment has been put forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elton]

I shall speak, if I may, to Amendments 86E and 86F, about the age at which careers advice is made available. When teaching in a secondary school myself, I remember the agonies associated with seeing how early children had to choose which subjects to specialise in. All I would ask is that the Minister should bear in mind the advisability of having careers advice available early in the year when the first choice of specialism is forced on children.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I want to intervene briefly on this. I should declare an interest as, like the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, I am a member of the Skills Commission which recommended the development of an all-age careers service. I welcome the fact that the Government have moved in that direction. Currently, two problems arise. One is the rundown of the current service, particularly in light of the squeeze on local government finances and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wall, pointed out, the reduction of money devoted to this service by the Department for Education; £7 million is a miserable sum and far too little. There is also the problem of transition, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

Another problem is the shortage of professionals in this area. Not only have people trained to deliver careers guidance left the profession, but not enough people have been properly trained to provide the new service. One thing that the Government might do to show their earnest in setting up the new service would be to establish a crash course in training careers advisers. They are graduates who do a one-year master’s course to qualify and they are desperately needed. As I said, we have the transition problem from 2011-12; let us grab this opportunity and invest in the service as required. That would show the Government’s willingness to support it; they would be putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak. I realise that the question of money is very difficult.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, I, too, support the group of amendments so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I support them because as a group they correct a number of the anomalies inherent in Clause 27. The amendments are consistent with good learning and with the frequency of provision. Face-to-face opportunity to discuss career needs is of very high value, and the Bill is deficient in this area. We recognise the important contribution that trained and qualified professionals can make.

Of course, when a person chooses to have career advice, it is because they are uncertain of their direction of travel. The whole purpose of it is to examine the options and alternatives available with professionals who are honest, who test one’s capability and who advise. There are many people who start out wanting to take an academic route, and who finish up taking the vocational option, or vice versa: that is the benefit of career advice. I fail to see how you will get that interaction and that positive two-way challenge—because it can be a challenge—under what is proposed. What is being proposed is an all-age careers service. I have no difficulty with that as a principle. Indeed, I believe that the Careers Service should and can extend throughout one’s working life. That happens in industry, where managers and senior professionals are supported with personal trainers from time to time, who provide career advice on whether to continue or change direction. This is why the online provision is deficient, because it does not provide the opportunity for challenge and interaction. As with so many of the education proposals which are emerging, we get a lot of promises but some degree of under delivery. I see this career provision of the Bill as fitting that area of concern: much is promised, but little substance is delivered when it is tested.

The fact is that the people who will be denied the opportunity for face-to-face career advice are actually the people who may need it most. Not every child has access to the internet; indeed, in some parts of the country, that is for technical reasons, not just real poverty. That is adding to the reality of digital poverty from which some communities suffer disadvantage.

Careers advice is vital. You must get advice, you must challenge the provider and the provider must interact with your good self. What is so worrying about this aspect of the Bill is that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has seen the careers service as broken, deficient or not meeting the needs of students. All my experience is that career advisers care about what they offer and deliver.

The Secretary of State is taking away the duty to provide and replacing it with a duty to provide access. That is a fundamental shift in the culture, the duty and responsibility of the service. There is no way at this or any point that anyone can be certain that what is proposed will lead to better advice. Local authorities, who have that duty, will not be in the driving seat in procuring professionals to provide better advice but merely carrying through what is decreed by governing boards and the school. The bond between school, local authority and governing bodies will be broken when the all-age career advice service online becomes the norm.