Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

I fully associate myself with such disorderly conduct in the House and congratulate those inspiring school and college leaders who have rightly been recognised by Her Majesty the Queen. Teaching is a moral mission, and it should be celebrated as such.

In 2010, the Department for Education was warned of threats to schools in Birmingham, but for four years, on the Secretary of State’s watch, his Department failed to act. The chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, is now urging the Government to provide greater public assurance that all schools in a locality, regardless of their status, will discharge the full range of their responsibilities. When will the Secretary of State accept that micro-managing schools from behind a desk in Whitehall does not work, and that we need a proper system of independent, local accountability?

[Michael Gove]

I suspect that that question will be shown not only on BBC Parliament but on UKTV’s Gold channel, because it is a magnificent repeat. The hon. Gentleman asked precisely that question in his speech last week. The truth is that we took action to deal with extremism in schools, which the last Government never did. We have also taken action to introduce no-notice inspections, which will ensure that Her Majesty’s chief inspector has the powers, which he was denied under the last Government, to deal with the problems that started under the last Government.

[Tristram Hunt]

The reason I am asking the question again is that we are still searching for an answer. Labour’s answer is absolutely clear: we need directors of school standards, independent of local authorities, to ensure a robust system of local oversight. The Secretary of State’s policy involves more Whitehall centralism, more unqualified teachers, and less collaboration and accountability. Is it not the case that even those on the Government Benches now realise that Birmingham has shown that his school model is bust?

[Michael Gove]

I have to say that the hon. Gentleman did rather better at reading out his question this time than he did last week, so I suppose it really was worth that exercise in déjà vu all over again. The truth is that Labour’s policy is opaque and unclear. At different times, the hon. Gentleman has been in favour of free schools and greater autonomy, and against them. He is currently in favour of abolishing the national curriculum in all schools, but David Blunkett, the man who advises him on schools policy, is in favour of imposing it in all schools. As I have said before: inconsistency, thy name is Tristram.

Birmingham Schools

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

The Education Secretary speaks of requiring all schools to promote British values; all well and good. Among the greatest of British values is an education system that welcomes and integrates migrant communities, builds successful citizens in a multicultural society and secures safety and high standards for all, and the Education Secretary is failing to do so.

[Michael Gove]

I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) for his comments and I agree that we need to focus on successful futures for these schools. I also agree that we need a broader debate, to ensure that all schools—faith and non-faith—make sure that children are integrated into modern Britain. But I regret the fact that in his comments he was not able to let us know the Labour party’s position on no-notice inspections. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) for stressing that he believes that no-notice inspections are right; I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) for stressing that. But I am still none the wiser about the position of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. I am afraid that I am also none the wiser about his position on whether or not it is right to promote British values in schools and right to take the other steps that we have taken.

The hon. Gentleman asks about meetings between the Department for Education and the Birmingham headmaster, Tim Boyes, in 2010. I can confirm that I was not at that meeting, nor was I informed about its content. That is why I have asked the permanent secretary to investigate, and I have also asked him to look at other occasions before 2010 when warnings were reportedly given. The hon. Gentleman has previously alleged that I was warned by Mr Boyes in 2010 and did not act; that is not the case and I hope that he will make it clear in the future, and withdraw that allegation.

The hon. Gentleman asks about local oversight of all these schools. It is important to stress that when Tim Boyes raised these issues in 2010 all these schools were facing local oversight from Birmingham city council, and as Sir Michael Wilshaw has concluded, Birmingham city council failed. As Ofsted makes clear, repeated warnings to those charged with local oversight were ignored. Indeed, it was only after my Department was informed about the allegations in the Trojan horse letter that action was taken, and I thank Birmingham city council for its co-operation since then.

The hon. Gentleman asks what action was taken overall since 2010. It would be quite wrong to allege, as he does, that the Department has taken no action on extremism since 2010; the opposite is the case. As the Home Secretary pointed out, we were the first Department outside her own to set up a counter-extremism unit. Unreported and under-appreciated, it has prevented a number of extremist or unsuitable organisations from securing access to public funds.

The hon. Gentleman asks about academies and free schools, and the autonomy that they enjoy. First, I must correct him: none of the schools that Ofsted inspected are free schools and all the evidence so far is that free schools in Birmingham are proving a success. I must also correct him on the matter of oversight of academies. Academies are subject to sharper and more rigorous accountability than local authority schools. They are inspected not just by Ofsted but by the Education Funding Agency.

The hon. Gentleman also asks about curriculum inspection. Let me stress that it is already a requirement that schools have a broad and balanced curriculum; the question is enforcement. That means giving Ofsted the tools it needs, such as no-notice inspections and suitably qualified inspectors.

The problems identified today are serious and long-standing. They require us all to take action against all forms of extremism. I have been encouraged throughout my career by support from Opposition Members—the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, among others—for a non-partisan approach to fighting extremism. I hope that, after his comments today, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central will reflect on the seriousness of these charges and recognise that this is not an appropriate vehicle through which he should make wider criticisms of the school reforms with which he and his party disagree. I hope that, in the future, we can count on him and others working across party boundaries to keep our children safe.

Free Schools (Funding)

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on the allocation of funding for the free school programme.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I am delighted to be able to update the House on progress in providing new school places. Just last week, the Public Accounts Committee congratulated the Department on the clear progress that had been made in delivering new school places through the free school programme, with costs significantly lower than under the last Government’s school building programme.

Free schools cost about half what schools built under Building Schools for the Future cost. Thanks to the savings we have made, and thanks to the success of our long-term economic plan, we have been able to invest far more than the last Government in creating new school places, especially in areas of need.

We are investing £5 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament in giving money to local authorities for new school places. That is more than twice what the last Government spent over the equivalent preceding period, despite repeated warnings that the population was increasing. We plan to invest even more in the new Parliament, with £7 billion allocated in the next Parliament for new school places. As a result, we have delivered 212,000 new primary school places between 2012 and 2013, and we are on course to deliver another 357,000. Thanks to the efforts of many great local authorities, we now have fewer pupils in overcrowded primary schools than we had in 2010.

As well as the expansion of existing local authority provision, we have also, on top of that, created 83,000 places in new free schools. The budget for these schools has been just under 10% of the Department’s total capital budget, but free schools are so far outperforming other schools inspected under our new and more rigorous Ofsted framework. Schools such as Dixons Trinity in Bradford and Canary Wharf free school in Tower Hamlets have been ranked outstanding within months of opening. Free schools are now over-subscribed, with three applications for every place. Indeed, the longer that free schools are in place, the more popular they are, with schools such as the West London free school and the London Academy of Excellence becoming the most over-subscribed schools in their area.

It is important to remember that while we have met the demand identified by local authorities for new school places, we have also set up seven out of 10 free schools in areas of significant population growth. Indeed, as the National Audit Office has pointed out, £700 million of the £950 million spent on free schools so far opened has actually augmented the money given to local authorities for new school places. Other free schools have been set up to provide quality provision where existing standards are too low, or school improvement has been too slow.

We should never be complacent about educational standards, but we should today take time to thank good local authorities and all our school leaders and teachers, because no child in this country is without a school place, fewer children are in overcrowded schools and Ofsted reports that more children are being taught good and outstanding lessons by more highly qualified teachers than ever before. In short, thanks to the rigour with which we have borne down on costs, the innovation unleashed by the academy and free schools programmes and the success of the Government’s economic strategy, we have been able both to provide all necessary school places and to drive quality up across the board. I commend the free school programme to the House.

[Tristram Hunt]

This afternoon, young people are sitting their exams, and we wish them the best of luck. They will be showing exactly the kind of self-control and focus so woefully lacking in Education Ministers. Indeed, the Minister for Schools has not even deigned to turn up.

The question today is: when we face enormous constraints on the public purse, how do we best prioritise spending for new school places? For every parent wondering why their child is taught in a class size of over 30 and for every parent angry that they cannot get their kid into a good local school, we now have the answer: the coalition—both parts—has raided the schools budget to pay for pet political projects in expensive, half-empty and underperforming free schools.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has reallocated £400 million from the targeted basic need programme to fill a black hole in the free school programme? Does he accept National Audit Office data showing that more than two thirds of the places created by the free school programme have been created outside areas of high and severe primary need? Why has the free school programme been so heavily weighted to secondary places during a time of national crisis in primary places? Does he agree with the Treasury that spending on this programme, like his leadership of the Department, is spiralling out of control?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He asks where responsibility lies for a shortage of school places. The responsibility lies with the previous Government, whose Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note to his successor saying that there was no money left. The responsibility lies with the Labour Government who, when they were in power, cut primary places—cut them—by 200,000 between 2003 and 2010. The responsibility lies with the Labour Government who cut funding for new school places by £150 million, or by 26%, between 2004 and 2009. The responsibility lies with the previous Labour Government, whose primary capital programme told local authorities to cut primary places, not to increase them.

This coalition Government have increased spending on primary school places and local authority need and, at the same time, we have provided excellent new provision through the free school programme. I note that the hon. Gentleman was silent on Labour’s position on the free school programme. Where is the consistency of Labour’s position on this policy? In May 2010, he said that free schools were a

“vanity project for yummy mummies”.

In May 2013, he reversed his position, saying that he wanted to put “rocket boosters” under the programme. In October 2013, he reversed again, saying that free schools were a “dangerous ideological experiment”. Later the same month, he said, “If you are a parent interested in setting up a free school, we will be on your side.” He has had more contorted positions on free schools than some Indian sex manuals that I could name.

The truth is that the hon. Gentleman has betrayed his inconsistency on free schools and the inconsistency in his support for the additional money that we have put in to provide not just local authorities but free school sponsors with the places that our children need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

We are consulting on exactly how we should distribute the additional cash in order to ensure that it goes to the very poorest families, but I am aware that in the west midlands generally—and in Solihull particularly—there are families in desperate need of support, and I hope we will be able to extend that to them as quickly as possible.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

More and more research shows the importance of early-years development in a child’s education. The Labour party’s Sure Start programme was focused on supporting those vital infant years—a policy of prevention, rather than cure. We know that the Tories do not support Sure Start, but in 2010, the Secretary of State pledged to create 4,200 new health visitors. Can he tell the House how far he is from meeting that target?

[Michael Gove]

We extravagantly support Sure Start and I am a great advocate of the great work that Sure Start children’s centres do, but the provision of additional health visitors is a matter for the Secretary of State for Health.

[Tristram Hunt]

That is exactly the problem with this Government—no cross-departmental thinking about having health visitors focus on early-years development. [Laughter.] The Tories may laugh at the impact that health visitors have on early-years education, but the Opposition think that the early years are vital. As the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) suggested, research published by the Sutton Trust on Friday reiterated the impact that good parenting has on school readiness, educational attainment and progression into continued education and work. Will the Government’s commitment to 4,200 new health visitors be matched this Parliament, or is it another broken promise, like Sure Start centres?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend raises a very specific case, although I understand why she has brought it to my attention. I hope that we will have the opportunity to talk afterwards so that I can ensure that the Dorset local authority is provided with all the support it needs to make sure that children’s educational standards improve.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Halton (Derek Twigg) have shown, the Opposition recognise the essential role that Ofsted plays in driving up standards in schools. I want to place on the record our continued support for Sir Michael Wilshaw. However, since we last met, the Secretary of State has, in the words of Sir Michael, unleashed a “smear campaign” against the chief inspector. He has also sacked Baroness Morgan as chair of Ofsted, despite the fact that the Minister for Schools thinks that she has done a “fantastic job”. Why is the Secretary of State so intent on undermining England’s independent school inspectorate system?

[Michael Gove]

I am sure that the chief inspector will be touched to hear the hon. Gentleman’s words of support, but I think that he will also be disturbed to hear that he is alleged to have uttered words that he did not utter. This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has sallied forth without being in secure possession of the facts. It has been the case beforehand that his facts have been wrong about the situation in the South Leeds academy, and it has been the case that his facts have been wrong, on broadcast, about the number of unqualified teachers in our schools. His facts are wrong again in the allegations he makes about the chief inspector. I hope that he will take this opportunity to ensure that the House knows that he has unfairly and wrongly put words in the chief inspector’s mouth that he did not utter.

[Tristram Hunt]

We see that the Secretary of State has refused to condemn the campaign against the chief inspector. Is not the truth of the matter this: Ofsted is inspecting his free schools without fear or favour, and he does not like it? The chief inspector wants to inspect academy chains, and he does not like it. On Friday the Al-Madinah secondary school closed, and on Sunday we learned of a new Ofsted purge. Surely the Secretary of State should focus on raising standards, not politicising our school inspectorate system.

[Michael Gove]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to be taken seriously, he must pay close attention to the facts. The facts are these: I have been zealous in ensuring that we apply a tighter and more rigorous inspection framework to all schools—free schools, academies and maintained schools—and in so doing I appointed Sir Michael Wilshaw and I appointed Sally Morgan. I have been the person who has been leading change in our schools. I have been the person who has been insistent that we hold our education system to the highest standards. I am the person now demanding once again that the hon. Gentleman withdraw his earlier statement when he put words into the mouth of Sir Michael Wilshaw that he did not utter. If he does not, we will draw the appropriate conclusion, as the New Statesman already has, which is that his policies are both “timid” and “incoherent”.

Teaching Quality

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

The most recent evidence I have seen shows that more than 90% of teachers in the independent sector have qualified teacher status, so that is the vast majority. I suggest that the remaining number should be working towards qualified teacher status so that they can transfer their skills to the state sector.

Under a Labour Government, we would not have the scandal of an academy school in Leeds advertising for “an unqualified maths teacher” with just four GCSEs. We would not have the scandal of the Al-Madinah free school where the presence of so many unqualified teachers did such damage to those pupils’ learning. We would not have more than one in 10 teachers in free schools being unqualified.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I have taken the opportunity at the Dispatch Box before to draw to the attention of the hon. Gentleman the fact that the South Leeds academy was advertising for trainees under a provision that has existed since 1982. The letter that acquainted me with those facts was also shared with him. Why has he repeated something that is simply untrue in this House and on other public platforms?

[Tristram Hunt]

I read the advert and it said, “an unqualified maths teacher.” It was there in black and white. I had at this point—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt]

Name him.

[Michael Gove]

I will name him in due course.

The motion states:

“That this House believes that no school system can surpass the quality of its teachers; and therefore resolves”.

My friend said:

“A clause following a semi-colon needs an expressly stated subject (as opposed to a merely ‘understood’ one, just as a complete sentence does. In other words, either the semi-colon must be replaced by a comma or the clause after it must be changed to something like ‘and that this house therefore resolves’ or ‘and that it therefore resolves’. As it stands, the construction is ungrammatical.”

He went on to the next phrase, which refers to

“all teachers in all state-funded schools”

and stated that

“one or other of the two ‘alls’ is redundant and should be deleted”.

He then looked at the phrase

“should be qualified or working towards Qualified Teacher Status”.

He acknowledged that it was

“better, because less awkward-looking”,

but suggested that “should” as well as “be” should be at the beginning of each of the clauses.

He then pointed out that the reference to “ongoing continuing professional development” was tautologous, because continuing professional development is, by definition, ongoing. He also noted that the claim that that was

“in order to support them to excel in the classroom”

was an example of “Shocking grammar.” One cannot support someone to do something—following the word “support” with an infinitive. Rather, one supports someone in his or her attempt to do something. He went on in a similar vein and concluded: “Regrettably, this motion is, in total, a shocking piece of English.”

The reason I mention that is that I have enormous respect and affection for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). He and I are fans of both George Eliot and George Orwell. George Orwell wrote that

“the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers”

because

“the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts… Political language”—

of the kind we see in the Opposition’s motion—

“is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Sadly, that is what the Opposition’s case today is—pure wind without solidity.

The Opposition appear to be arguing that there is some sort of crisis in teaching, specifically recruitment to teaching, but the number of graduates with top degrees is up. Almost three quarters of graduates starting teacher training in this academic year have a first-class or 2:1 degree. That is the highest quality of graduates starting teacher training since records began. It is also the case that the number entering the teaching profession from top universities is up. Some 14% of graduates leaving Oxford in the past three years have chosen teaching as their profession, making it the single most popular destination for students from that university.

The quality of teaching has never been better. Ofsted figures show that it has improved significantly since 2010. Under Labour, the percentage of teaching that was “good” or “outstanding” in primary schools was 69%, but recent figures show that it is now 79%. Under Labour, the percentage of teaching that was “good” or “outstanding” in secondary schools was 65%, but now it is 72%. That is significant improvement under this coalition Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

It might, or it might not, but the point is that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said in his speech that teachers in the independent sector who did not have QTS would have to acquire it to work in the state sector. That means that state schools could not poach great teachers from independent schools, there could be no effective collaboration between them and we would not be able to lift standards in all state schools by using the expertise that others pay for.

[Tristram Hunt]

I was at the London Academy of Excellence on Friday with Richard Cairns and its excellent headmaster Rob Wilne, both of whom expressed great support for Labour’s policy of focusing on continuing professional development and raising the status and enhancing the standing of teachers. If I were the Secretary of State, before I talked about the London Academy of Excellence I might actually go and visit it.

[Michael Gove]

I note that the hon. Gentleman did not respond to my point about Richard Cairns not having QTS, and that he did not take the opportunity of returning to the Dispatch Box to apologise for stating things in the House that were not true. We will draw our own conclusions about his reliability as an expert witness.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns absolutely. We all know that, despite the occasionally brave forays into no-man’s land by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who has tried to defend parent-led academies, the majority of Labour Members—as we can hear from their catcalls and jeers—oppose free schools and greater parental choice and support the attempt of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to undermine those schools. We will fight them every step of the way.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your words about our colleague, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and his wife, Wyn. Our thoughts and prayers are with them for a speedy recovery.

In December, we learnt that the Prime Minister’s flagship Discovery free school will be closed. The failings of this episode have let down the people of Crawley, who will hold the Government to account. We know that the Discovery school was opened against the advice of the Montessori Schools Association, so will the Secretary of State tell the House how many free school applications Ministers have approved against the advice of Department officials?

[Michael Gove]

The advice of officials in this case was quite clear, and we accepted it. That is why the Discovery free school was opened.

[Tristram Hunt]

That says it all, does it not? We in the Opposition are in favour of innovation and autonomy in schools, but all we ask is that that is underpinned by basic safeguards and standards. National Audit Office reports reveal that low-scoring applications were waved through by Ministers against official advice, so let me give the Secretary of State another chance to set the record straight. Did Ministers approve applications for the Al-Madinah free school, the Discovery free school or the Kings Science academy free school against the advice of officials—yes or no?

[Michael Gove]

If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that I answered the question that he has just asked first time round. I pointed out that the advice from officials was to open the Discovery school. It was also the advice of officials to back Kings Science academy and to back Al-Madinah school. In all three examples, we took the advice of officials, but let me make it clear that it is entirely appropriate for Ministers to overrule officials at any given point. Officials advise and Ministers decide. But in these three cases, we took the advice of officials and appropriate safeguards were in place. One of the problems that Opposition Front Benchers have is that they support free schools in the abstract, but when it comes to the tough decisions necessary to improve education in this country, at the first whiff of grapeshot, they shy away and surrender.

PISA Results

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State both for making Government time available to discuss this important topic and for his statement, which I received 11 minutes ago. I am disappointed that he has adopted—both today and in various media outings—such a partisan approach to the data from PISA. Rather than throwing chum to his Back Benchers, he should concentrate on the lessons we can learn from today’s important study.

The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. If, as he said in The Daily Telegraph, the Labour party should take its share of the responsibility for these results, would he not agree that it should also take responsibility for, in his words, delivering the

“best generation of teachers this country has ever seen”?

It is clear that for all the hard work of our head teachers, teachers, parents and learning support staff, whom the Secretary of State rightly praised, we have a long way to go in English, maths and science to match our global competitors. These findings are a wake-up call for our schools. The PISA data reveal the continuing strength of east Asian countries and although there are important cultural differences that we should seek to understand, there are also pointers to reform in our schools system. So, can the Secretary of State confirm that part of the success of Singapore and Shanghai is down to the high quality of teachers in the classroom?

In Shanghai, all teachers have a teaching qualification and undergo 240 hours of professional development within the first five years of teaching. Under the Secretary of State’s deregulation agenda, the South Leeds academy can advertise for an “unqualified maths teacher” with just four GCSEs. We have seen a 141% increase in unqualified teachers in free schools and academies under this Government, so will he join the Schools Minister and me in working to secure qualified teachers in our classrooms?

Secondly, can the Secretary of State confirm that part of the east Asian education system is that schools work together, collaborate and challenge each other? Under their system, no school is left an island. Will he now abandon his aggressive discredited free-market reforms to schools and follow the Labour party’s lead in developing the kind of middle tier that brings schools together to work with, challenge and collaborate with one another?

In 2008, the Secretary of State informed the Daily Mail, his journal of choice:

“We have seen the future in Sweden and it works.”

Will he confirm today that that is no longer the case? In fact, no other country has fallen as abruptly as Sweden in maths over a 10-year period. Across all three measures—reading, maths and science—since 2009 Sweden has performed very poorly indeed. Many in Sweden regard the ideological programme of unqualified teachers and unregulated free schools as responsible for the drop in standards. The lesson from PISA is clear: we need freedom with accountability, autonomy with minimum standards, or else we end up with the chaos of the Secretary of State’s Al-Madinah school.

Finally, does the Secretary of State believe that a culture of zero tolerance for low expectations in other education systems produces high results across the board and that no child should be left behind? Will he use this opportunity to join the Deputy Prime Minister and me in condemning the unpleasant whiff of eugenics from the Mayor of London and instead use the opportunity provided by the PISA data to pursue excellence for all, academic and vocational, in all our schools?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He taxed me for demonstrating partisanship and indulging in personal attacks. I am glad that we had the opportunity to witness four minutes entirely free from those sins.

First, let me turn to the whole question of qualified teachers. It is the case that there are now fewer unqualified teachers in our schools than under Labour. In 2009, there were 17,400 unqualified teachers, in 2010, just before Labour left office, there were 17,800 and there are now only 14,800, a significant reduction. Indeed, those teachers who are now joining the profession are better qualified than ever before. In 2009, just before the Labour party lost office, only 61% of teachers had a 2:1 or better as their undergraduate degree. Under the coalition Government, the figure is 74%, which is a clear improvement that has been driven by the changes that we have introduced. It has been reinforced by the introduction of the school direct system, which I invited the hon. Gentleman to applaud and welcome—he declined to do so—and which has secured even more top graduates with a 2:1 or better, including a first, in our schools.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sweden. Unfortunately, it is the case that in Sweden results have slid, but as I said earlier, not only do we need to grant greater autonomy, as has been done for school leaders in Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and elsewhere, but we need a more rigorous system of accountability. We heard nothing from him on how we would improve accountability. There was no indication as to whether or not he supports, as he has indicated in the past, our English baccalaureate measure. There was no indication from him, as there has been in the past, as to whether or not he supports A-level reform, and there was no indication, as there has been in the past, that he believes in a rigorous academic curriculum for all. The terrible truth about the situation that we face in our schools is that Labour does not have a strong record to defend, and it does not have a strong policy to advance. That is why the coalition Government are committed to reform, and that is why, I am afraid, the hon. Gentleman must do better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important to stress that we need to ensure more work experience opportunities for all young people, which is why we have changed how children are funded when they enter post-16 education to make it easier to offer the appropriate work experience. I also agree that we need to ensure that careers advice for young people is suitably inspiring and to see whether the National Careers Service or other institutions can help. In particular, it is important to work with businesses to ensure that young people have the opportunity to see and hear from the role models who will ensure they make the right choices in the future.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that under his plans, students who study only the English language GCSE will be excluded from studying the great works of English literature?

[Michael Gove]

No, they will not be excluded from studying anything.

[Tristram Hunt]

The Secretary of State is not aware of his own GCSE reforms. He has introduced the soft bigotry of low expectations into our education system. He might have enjoyed studying the works of Jane Austen and Wilfred Owen, but he is denying England’s pupils the same access to our national canon if they take only the English language GCSE. If it was all right for him, at Robert Gordon’s college, why is it not okay for kids in Harlow and Blackpool today? Will he now urgently review the changes to English GCSE, or will he continue to dumb down our syllabus?

[Michael Gove]

Tragically, when I was a student at Robert Gordon’s college in Aberdeen, I was not able to take English GCSE, because I was in Scotland and GCSEs were not on offer at that time. As a historian, the hon. Gentleman could perhaps do with studying geography rather more.

Under our new accountability system, which I urge the hon. Gentleman to study and which his colleague, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), welcomed, English will not count unless students study both English language and literature, and the English baccalaureate, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) supports, will be conferred on students only if they study both English language and literature. He talks about Jane Austen. One of the tragedies about the current English GCSE is that fewer than 1% of students who sit it actually read a word of Jane Austen. Before he asks another question in the House, may I recommend to him one particular text of hers—“Pride and Prejudice”? A knowledge of both things would certainly help him to be a more effective Opposition spokesperson.

Qualified Teachers

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

In a second.

The difference between Liberal Democrat and Conservative policy, however, is not as big as the difference between those on the Labour Benches. In particular, I mean the difference between the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central on one side and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central on the other. We all know that the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished historian of the civil war, and he knows all about a body politic being racked by internal division. What a pity that it is his body politic that is being so racked.

Let us listen to the cavalier Tristram, talking to Conservative-supporting The Mail on Sunday. He said:

“What I am saying is if you want to do that”—

that is, set up a free school—

“when we are in government we will be on your side. There has been this perception that we would not be, and I want people to be absolutely clear that we are…putting rocket boosters on getting behind parents and social entrepreneurs…We are not going…back”—

no turning back—

“to the old days of the local authority running all the schools—they will not be in charge.”

Three cheers for the cavalier.

Then the puritan—the roundhead—Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central suddenly popped up a few hours later on the BBC talking about the free schools that he had been lauding just a few hours earlier. He said that

“you have…a system which allows…irregularities”

and

“allegations…because there’s no oversight there.”

He said that it was a “dangerous ideological experiment”, yet only a few hours before, it was an ideological experiment with which he had fallen in love. One of the flaws in this ideological experiment, he said—

[Tristram Hunt]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

In a second—[Hon. Members: “Give way.”] No, I think that the House is enjoying this section of my speech. I will conclude it in just a moment.

The hon. Gentleman said:

“We are not going to go back to the old days of the local authority…they will not be in charge”,

but then on Thursday he said that the problem with free schools was that local education authorities had no role in monitoring those schools. Within four days there has been a complete U-turn, a reversal, as the civil war in the Labour party between those who believe in excellence and those who believe in the unions is embodied in one man. In four days there has been one U-turn and no answers. I am very happy to give way now.

[Tristram Hunt]

I am delighted that the Secretary of State has finally given way. Let me be clear that the difference between our policy and that of the Government is that we believe in social enterprise and innovation but also believe in having qualified teachers in the classroom and systems of financial accountability and transparency, so that we do not end up with the chaos that we saw at Al-Madinah and Bradford. Let me go back to his earlier point, however. When did the division in the coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives on qualified teacher status first emerge? Can he talk us through the history?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely agree that those working with apprentices need to have either the best qualifications or the best experience in the relevant sector, which is why we implemented the recommendations of Alison Wolf’s report. We have allowed lecturers in further education, who are qualified in that sector but were not previously able to work in schools, to work in schools. We will also implement the Richard review, which once more puts employers in control of assuring the quality of vocational qualifications, so that anyone who secures an apprenticeship can be confident that it will lead to a satisfying job.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

With youth unemployment at the 1 million mark, one would have thought that Ministers would do all they could to get young people into training and jobs, so why have the Government overseen a 12% reduction in young apprenticeships in the past six months alone, alongside a £165 million departmental underspend? Where is the determination to fix this crisis? Rather than writing eight-page letters and trying to become the pen pal of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), should the Secretary of State not be focusing on some policy work?

[Michael Gove]

Rather than writing eloquent questions and reading them out with the rounded vowels of a public school educated champion of vocational education, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman concentrate on what the Government have done. I also suggest that he refer back to the wonderful Westminster Hall debate, held with the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, in which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that under the previous Government vocational education was not good enough, that there were far too many low standard courses, and that the Wolf report and the Richard review have been the two best pieces of work on vocational and technical education undertaken in the past 25 years. If he looked back at what he said then, he would face a dilemma: does he eat the words he uttered in Westminster Hall, or does he acknowledge that the question he has just asked was nonsense from start to finish?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

It is an excellent report and I would love to meet a cross-party delegation of MPs to tease out the implications of some of its brilliant recommendations.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

T5. The Secretary of State has spoken eloquently of the need for academic subjects to be taught in poorer communities, so why is Keele university in north Staffordshire seeing its allocation for secondary teacher core training cut by 100% in history, 100% in geography and 100% in English? Will he give me an assurance that the new teaching regime will not distort teacher supply geographically, so that areas such as Stoke-on-Trent are not deprived of well trained, well motivated teachers? Why this snobbery? Don’t Stoke kids deserve the best?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I read his column in the Stoke Sentinel on precisely this issue, with admiration both for his passion and for the quality of his prose. I assure him that we will absolutely ensure that, across the country, teachers who are well trained will be placed in the schools that need them most. That is why we have reformed pay and conditions—there is still silence from the Labour party on whether or not it supports our changes—and why we have made changes to teacher training through the school direct programme. Let me offer the hon. Gentleman a meeting with the head of the Teaching Agency, Charlie Taylor. After that meeting, if he is not impressed by Charlie and his commitment to helping the poorest children do well, I am afraid that nothing will convince him.

Exam Reform

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Exactly as he points out, one of the real problems with the GCSE course is that teachers say that it is poor preparation for A-levels. In some cases, GCSE English and maths is poor preparation for the workplace as well. I entirely agree with him, and I hope that over the course of the next few months we can work to ensure that that chasm is closed.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the reform plans as regards an end to endless resits and competition between examination boards, but I am not convinced of the year zero approach to coursework, nor that this might not lead to a two-tier system. May I gently say to the Secretary of State that this is not the way to develop public policy in this area? In Hong Kong, this kind of major reform took 10 years of open public debate. I fully understand that he wants to butter up the Rothermeres, but the examination system deserves better than a series of squalid leaks to The Mail on Sunday.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, particularly for the fact that in 30 seconds he said considerably more that was sensible and coherent than his Front Benchers managed in their allotted five minutes. I am also grateful to him for showing a degree of leadership in welcoming many of the changes that we have made. I take his point about coursework and controlled assessment. I said earlier that in some subjects outside the academic core, such as art and design and design and technology, we can see the need to assess practical endeavour. However, I remain to be convinced, given the terrible problems that we have seen with coursework and, this year, with controlled assessment, that it is right for academic subjects.

Secondary Education (GCSEs)

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I would never accuse the hon. Lady of falling into the fatalist camp, but some do. The fatalist position—that we cannot improve—was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chair of the Education Committee, but I believe Andrew Adonis, who said: “The fatalists who say”—[Interruption.] As Front Benchers say, “If the cap on aspiration fits, wear it.”

Andrew Adonis has said:

“The fatalists who say that countries with strong academic school traditions cannot create, in a short timescale, quality vocational education institutions and pathways with real prestige should take note. It is being done abroad and must be done here.”

It is being done here through the introduction of university technical colleges, and through the development of studio schools, which were introduced by the Government of Andrew Adonis and expanded massively by this one. It is also being done with a review of vocational qualifications, which will mean that apprenticeships are at last possessed of the rigour that all hon. Members might expect, but which did not happen under the previous Government. Thanks to the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, we have extended a requirement so that all apprenticeships will be for 12 rather than just six months. We have also extended the important work-related learning in apprenticeships. I acknowledge that there are improvements to be made, but the Holt and Richard reviews will ensure that we make them.

If those improvements are to be enduring and if we are to succeed, if the university technical colleges and studio schools are to succeed and take root, and if the changes we are making in the academies programme are to succeed, such as the welcome addition of the Liverpool college—an independent fee-paying school—to the state sector, which was welcomed graciously by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, we need, as Andrew Adonis pointed out today, a consensus in the House.

In calling this debate, the hon. Gentleman has asked Parliament to approve certain propositions. Let us try to approve certain propositions on where Labour stands on critical issues.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

It’s not about Labour; it’s about you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman says yes, but his position on modern foreign languages has changed over time. As I pointed out, he said in July 2004:

“In the knowledge society of the 21st century language competence”

is “essential.” Then, in September 2004, he said, “We don’t want to go back to the old days when we tried to force feed languages to students.” Then, when he was asked in May 2011 what his real position had been on languages in 2004, he said: “I had mixed views.” Given this lack of consistency, can we be certain that his position now, in backing modern foreign languages, is a consistent one? And will he assent to our other proposals? Does he believe that we should get rid of modules at GCSE and end the re-sit culture? Yes or no? A simple nod will suffice. [Interruption.] No, he is not going to get into it. No consistency! He is uncertain. Is he for it, or against it? What about the English baccalaureate? All he needs to do is nod. Will he support the English baccalaureate? We know that the hon. Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) do.

[Tristram Hunt]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

Does the hon. Gentleman support the EBacc? Yes or no?

[Tristram Hunt]

I support the English baccalaureate. But my question is this: does the Secretary of State think the Daily Mail reported his intended reforms accurately and fully?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting the English baccalaureate. The frock-coated communist has become the grey-suited radical. One of the things that matters to me is whether the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby supports the English baccalaureate. Yes or no? [Hon. Members: “Answer the question.”] After my appearance at Leveson, it probably ill behoves me to pass commentary on the press in this country, other than to say that I support the right of a free and rigorous press to report and comment on things with their usually pungency.

Does the hon. Gentleman support our position on equivalents? Does he support stripping them out of the school system?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

T7. May I welcome today’s decision by the Secretary of State to allocate £2.7 million to English Heritage to encourage schoolchildren to access local history sites, which is often the best way of helping young people to understand history? Does he now regret the Government’s decision to slash English Heritage’s funding by one third and the absurd decision to leave Stoke-on-Trent, the birthplace of the industrial revolution, off the list of pathfinder sites?

[Michael Gove]

Funding for English Heritage is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. I have never known him to make a wrong decision in his life, so I cannot imagine that he has done anything other than find the funding that English Heritage requires in order to do its superb job even better. As for Stoke, I have a confession to make. The hon. Gentleman invited me to the potteries and I welshed on the deal. I would love to come to Stoke, because I am a huge fan of that city and its contribution to our industrial heritage, and of the way in which he has championed its role as a model both of how we can improve education and of urban regeneration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

T5. Research suggests that continuous teacher training offers the surest route for school improvements. What steps is the Secretary of State’s Department taking in conjunction with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that university departments are opening up to local schools, so that teachers are up to speed with the latest scholarship and can inspire their pupils?

[Michael Gove]

That is a typically acute point from the hon. Gentleman. One of the things we are doing is to invite the new group of 100 teaching schools that we have designated to play a closer role in collaboration with universities. Just last week, I was talking to the Royal Society about how important it is that universities and learned societies ensure that the best teachers can become accredited as masters in their field so that they remain up to speed with developments in their subject.

Schools White Paper

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I believe in diversity and pluralism—different strokes for different folks. Middle schools do very well in some parts of the country. I know that the lead member for education in Leicestershire, Ivan Oulds, is one of the most impressive councillors in the country, and I look forward to talking to him, my hon. Friend and other colleagues to see what can be done to ensure that everyone is better off.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

May I urge Ministers to focus on the question of resits, which often work to the disadvantage of lower socio-economic groups and are at the root of grade inflation? I am also concerned about the thinking on modules. Modules at A-level work very well indeed, so I would be hesitant about rolling those back. Finally, I join my hon. Friends on the question of the importance of grammar and spelling. On that note, I must point to a grievous error on page 7, line 7 of the statement we were provided. The Secretary of State, of all people, should know how to spell “bureaucracy”!

[Michael Gove]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point about bureaucracy. Whenever I see that word, a red mist descends over my eyes, so occasionally the finger slips on the keyboard. I also thank him for his points about GCSEs and A-levels. We are stripping away modules from GCSEs. With A-levels, although I favour in many cases a linear approach that encourages synoptic understanding of the subject, it remains for universities, learned bodies and schools to decide the best way forward. For some subjects, it is appropriate to have a modular approach at A-level.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Top historians such as Niall Ferguson, Simon Schama and even the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) have all pressed on the Government the need to ensure that history is taught as a connected narrative. I agree with them.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Secretary of State on attracting the likes of Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson to advise the Government, although quite when they last saw the inside of a British classroom is open to debate? However, is the real issue not the syllabus, but the fact that the average 13-year-old has only one hour of history a week for 32 weeks a year, thanks to the growth of citizenship and other well-meaning additions to the syllabus that surely need to be pulled back?

[Michael Gove]

I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s searing attack on curriculum changes introduced under the last Labour Government, appreciate his commitment to the better teaching of history and note, also, the mildly envious tone in his remarks about Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson. However, I can assure him that a copy of “The Frock-Coated Communist” is on my shelves as well, so his sales will certainly be improving—although, whether they can match Niall’s and Simon’s remains to be seen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tristram Hunt and Michael Gove

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend was good enough to lobby me several weeks ago about the fate of the school that he mentioned, and schools in Warrington overall. He was, as ever, articulate and powerful on behalf of his constituents. I recognise that his constituents have been let down by the fact that Building Schools for the Future spent so much money on bureaucracy, and not enough on bricks and mortar. The purpose of our capital review is to ensure that money reaches the front line more quickly, and that the dysfunctional system that was established under the last Government—which they took no steps to reform or abolish—is transformed. I believe that there will be an interim report in a few months’ time and a final report by the end of the calendar year, both of which will transform school buildings for the future.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that figures from his department show that academy schools are, on average, teaching one third less GCSEs in history and geography than schools in the maintained sector, and are often inflating their grades through the use of GCSE equivalents? If that is to be the model for the future, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that academic subjects are protected in academies?

[Michael Gove]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I am committed to academic excellence, so I should point out that he should have said “fewer”, not “less”. However, he has made a good point. I am worried about the use of so-called equivalent qualifications instead of academic GCSEs. When I raised the issue from the Opposition Benches, the then Secretary of State said that I was talking achievements down, but I am glad to note that we can now form a coalition for excellence across the Dispatch Box.