................................................................................ ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 28.4.96
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. When Gillian Shephard became the Education Secretary she promised a period of stability for the schools. But now it seems she's under pressure to embark on what could be the most radical shake up of Education for thirty years. I'll be talking to Mrs Shephard after the News read by Chris Lowe. NEWS HUMPHRYS: But first Education - the third in our series in which we've been looking at the policies on schools of each of the three main parties. Today: the Tories. After years of reform and upheaval teachers have been giving thanks because things have more or less settled down. But now Mr Major has let it be known that he wants to see a grammar school in every town in the land. If that happens the effect on comprehensive education could be dramatic. I'll be talking to Gillian Shephard, the Education Secretary, after this report from Jo-Anne Nadler. ******************* Well, Gillian Shephard can we begin at the beginning as it were. Do you accept that the standard of education in our schools is still not high enough? GILLIAN SHEPHARD: I think that we've made enormous strides in raising standards over the last, particularly four to five years, as a result of the reforms that the government's put in place. But I do know and indeed have frequently said, both publicly and in private, that standards have got to be pushed much higher. HUMPHRYS: So let's look at what should perhaps be done. Let's look at what the critics say. Resources first of all. We are still not spending enough in our schools they say. Do you accept that? SHEPHARD: I really do not accept that. We're spending record amounts of money on education now at every level. We've just put in three-quarters of a billion pounds in to nursery education to give children a flying start at the beginning of their school careers, and we're spending more than we have ever spend of the school sector on colleges and on universities, an enormous amount. What I think we now need to focus on more closely is the way that the money is being spent. It shook everyone I think when I was obliged to close the Hackney Downs School in London under the Labour-controlled Hackney local education authority, where the inspectors said that the level of education was so deplorable that the school needed to be closed, that it was incapable of improvement. And in that school there was one teacher for every eight pupils, and two-and-a-half times the national average was being spent on each and every pupil, so there is no correlation between what you spend and what you get. There is of course a correlation between the quality of the teacher and the head, and what you get with that is where we've got to put our effort. HUMPHRYS: Let me come back to that question of a correlation between what you spend and what you get. But you say we're a
spending record amount. Yes of course we are because spending goes up as the national wealth goes up, so you would expect us to be spending a record amount, but what matters is how much we're spending as a proportion of our national wealth, our national income, and the fact is that we were actually spending the same amount in 1979. It hasn't gone up. SHEPHARD: What matters is the use that we make of the money. That obviously matters... HUMPHRYS: No what matters is how much we're spending as well, the total amount matters. SHEPHARD: We are still spending a record amount, and what matters is the use that we are making of the money. I have to say to you that this country has wasted arguably two-and-half to three decades discussing the wrong things in education. In the 1940s we were talking about buildings. In the 1950s we were talking about roofs over heads. In the 1960s and '70s we were talking about using education as a tool of social engineering. At no stage were we spending enough attention on what education does and how well it does it. That is equipping children with the knowledge and skills to make them fulfilled individuals and to enable them to earn their own livings and contribute to the economy. Now those things were neglected. The government had a huge amount to put right when it got in in 1979. That's why we've seen such a very very comprehensive package of reforms. HUMPHRYS: But you're actually telling me this morning are you, that you wouldn't want to spend more money on education because there's no need to?. SHEPHARD: I am saying that we are spending record amounts and .... HUMPHRYS: Of course, we've dealt with that. You would be spending a record amount wouldn't you? SHEPHARD: What I'm saying to you is that it is at least as important to consider and examine the way that you are spending that money, and that is what we're engaged on. HUMPHRYS: Alright, class sizes, the correlation you say between spending and results. Class sizes - you have to spend more money if you are to reduce class sizes. That goes without saying. Teachers are the most expensive part of the whole process obviously and rightly too. Would you prefer class sizes to be smaller? SHEPHARD: Not necessarily because what matters again, much more than the number of children in the class, provided it is within sensible bounds, is the quality of the teaching. That has been emphasised by the Chief Inspector of Schools in this year's annual report, in last year's annual report. Of course it is more difficult for any teacher as one of the pupils said on the film to do a very good job with a huge class, but the fact is it is the quality of the teacher that counts. It's also the case that there are about sixteen different factors which affect class size other than resources. For example the school's admissions policy - whether the head teaches - whether the senior staff teach, whether there are classroom assistants within the class. I mean there are a whole range of factors quite apart from resources. So it's a very very much less black and white question than you're putting. HUMPHRYS: Well not me; the people in our film of course made it.... SHEPHARD: That is being put shall I say. HUMPHRYS: Quite so, and that's important who is putting this question, and you said huge classes - the gentleman on the film said thirty-five. Is that a huge class? SHEPHARD: I wouldn't say so in certain circumstances. Certainly I would expect a teacher with a class of thirty-five children to be supported at certain times of the day with teaching assistance, possibly with help from students, from parents. It's very rare you know, that you go into a classroom and you find the teacher on his or her own, especially in primary school. There is more often than not support from other adults, but there is another point here, and it's a very important point, and it's to do with teaching method. Now, the Chief Inspector in his last annual report made great play, quite correctly, of the importance of pedagogy, of the way that you teach, of the effectiveness of whole class teaching particularly, at the primary stage. He doesn't of course, and it would be wrong if he had, say that all classes should be taught with children in rows facing the front, but he does say that in certain areas of the curriculum that is the most effective way to teach, and you know that also has to be looked at, and it is clearly much easier if you have quite a large class to teach in that way and effectively too. So there are other questions as well. HUMPHRYS: But the reality is that what has been happening is that class sizes have been getting bigger. Now you seem to be unconcerned with that, if I read you correctly. Perhaps I'm not, because you do use this expression "within sensible bounds". I'm not sure what you mean by that. SHEPHARD: Yes of course. Well I'm explaining to you why I am more concerned about the quality of teaching and about the quality of teaching methods, than I am about class sizes because... HUMPHRYS: ...but the one doesn't rule out the other does it, you can be concerned about the one and also concerned about the other. SHEPHARD: You could, if it were the case for example that teachers were not helped with other adults in the classroom.And if it were not the case that the way that children are taught these days involves some being withdrawn from the class to undertake another activity, for several classes to be brought together, for example for drama, for art, for physical education or whatever. It isn't a fixed picture and there are a lot of elements in it but the key thing is the quality of the teacher. HUMPHRYS: Well, that's a slightly different message to that which we've been getting from your party in the past in your manifestos of '83 and 1987. You boasted, made a great thing out of the fact that there were fewer pupils per teacher than they'd ever been. No mention of it in your manifesto in '92 and one of your ministers said: "no proof or connection between class size and quality of eduction." Now it seems to be shifting doesn't it. As the class size increases you seem to be attaching less importance to it. SHEPHARD: Let me just say to you that the pupil-teacher ratio is still lower than it was in 1979 and there is no question that the Chief Inspector and he's underlined it a number of times, both in individual reports and in his annual reports, makes no connection between children's achievement and class size and I agree with that. HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's look at another area where prudence in standards can be affected and that is in terms of selection. Critics say that even more - you heard some of them in that film - even more radical changes are necessary and one way to do that - one of those changes that's needed is to increase the amount of selection in schools..the level of selection. Do you agree with that? SHEPHARD: Well can I just settle this debate into context. I said the government had undertaken a huge programme of reform and that is the case and the reform really has been three fold: the content of education, the process (that is teacher training, inspection, testing and all of that) and then the structure. And what we've sought to do is to introduce into the structure of schools a wide range of different sorts of schools. Thus we have local education authority schools, selective, non-selective, comprehensive. We have grant maintained schools, city technology colleges, specialist colleges, church schools. What we have sought to do is to have a range of different kinds of schools, among which selective schools play an important part because they achieve good results, they are popular and they help lever up standards which of course is the whole point of reforms. Now, if I might just continue. What the Prime Minister and I - and there is not a cigarette paper between us on this matter - is this: that selective schools have an important part to play within that whole diversity. That we would not wish to return to a wholesale system of grammar schools and secondary moderns because that would actually be to strike at the heart of the diversity that we have achieved and in June I shall be launching a White Paper which will put forward proposals to enable more schools if their governors, their local communities, parents, staff, head and so on agree, to become selective more easily. HUMPHRYS: You have said, or you're going to say as I understand it in that White Paper, that you will introduce permission for schools to select fifteen per cent. Now you've also said - of their pupils that is - you've also said, you raise the possibility that they might be able to select one hundred per cent of their pupils, now is that going to be in the White Paper? SHEPHARD: You're confusing two things. We've recently completed a consultation on allowing schools to select up to fifteen per cent of their intake, without recourse to the department, that is one exercise. The next exercise is going to propose ways in which it would be...make it more easy for all schools - if that is their wish - to select indeed up to fifty per..one hundred of their pupils and that will be part of the White Paper and it will come out in June. HUMPHRYS: That's what I think I said. But now, are you interested in the idea of increasing that fifteen per cent to a hundred per cent? SHEPHARD: I'm sorry, you still are confusing the two ideas. The fifteen per cent is one exercise which is completed. The White Paper will canvass a much broader range for selection if that is the wish of schools and their governors. There are two exercises, one is completed, one is to take place in June. HUMPHRYS: So what about whether these schools should be allowed to make that decision for themselves, I mean that is what you're suggesting at the moment, that they should be allowed to decide for themselves what they do. Might you consider forcing them to go down the selection route? SHEPHARD: I think not forcing them. But I think that what we want to do is to make it very much easier in this particular area as we already have in the area of specialist schools, technology colleges and grant maintained status for schools to decide their own future. HUMPHRYS: You said "I think not", you don't sound terribly certain about that? SHEPHARD: I'm perfectly certain about what is going to be in the White Paper but I'm not actually going to disclose it this minute on this programme. HUMPHRYS: Well, but let's see if we can get some sense of where you are heading towards. I mean what's your general philosophy on this? At the moment we have a tiny number of schools who have chosen any kind of selection at all. SHEPHARD: About a hundred and sixty out of a total of five thousand or so. HUMPHRYS: Right and that's a very tiny proportion clearly. If that remains the case and you believe that selection is important and you've made that point that you do believe that selection is important, is part of the overall picture, that's just too small a proportion to be significant isn't it? SHEPHARD: I think not. You see what we're concerned with is to retain the diversity of the system, as I made clear at the beginning of this particular question, we value that diversity because we believe that it increases choice, that it allows different kinds of schools to offer different sorts of education to different kinds of children, and useful choice for their parents and we believe that selective schools play an important part in that overall diversity. HUMPHRYS: Not really...such a tiny proportion. SHEPHARD: Ah, but exactly. You're ignoring the full diversity which is grant maintained, city technology colleges, specialist schools, language colleges, technology schools, church schools and so on and we believe that selective schools play an important part in that whole range but as I have made clear and as the Prime Minister has also made clear we do not envisage a return to a two-type of school system, namely grammar and secondary modern. That is not what we want because it would be returning to two kinds of schools and striking at the very heart of the diversity of a range of different sorts of schools which the government reforms have, somewhat painfully, put in place since 1988. HUMPHRYS: Well, the Prime Minister seems to want a Grammar School in every town. Do you? SHEPHARD: That might well be the result of the proposals that we put in the White Paper, because it could well be that that number of schools will want to take up that option. That we shall have to see and it could well be the outcome of the proposals that we put forward. HUMPHRYS: Is that what you would like see happen, is that the desirable outcome as far as you are concerned? SHEPHARD: I certainly like the contribution that selective schools make to driving up standards. Only yesterday, the Chief Inspector produced a report which pointed out the excellence of the sixth form results from Grammar Schools. We need excellence in our system. We need schools which provide standards to which others can aspire and we do need choice, we do need diversity, and there's something else we need. We need to stretch the brightest of our children. I'm very struck by something that I was told years ago by someone who was and extremely senior Schools Inspector. And she said "I would really welcome seeing children tired by their experience at school and with their homeword. You see it in France, you see it in Germany. I believe we're beginning to see it here now. But I want to see the brightest stretched to the very limits of what they're capable". You see, it's not just for them, this isn't in a vacuum. We need those young people to help our economic efforts. HUMPHRYS: So you would like to make it easier for schools to become Grammar Schools, as well as to make it easier for them to select more pupils? SHEPHARD: That will be one of the points the White Paper will actually put in with other proposals. HUMPHRYS: So we are going to have then this two-tier system that you've already said you're opposed to? SHEPHARD: No, not at all. And you are deliberately misunderstanding. HUMPHRYS: No I assure you I am doing nothing of the sort. SHEPHARD: I have already said... HUMPHRYS: If you have a system of Grammar Schools alongside a system a Comprehensive Schools, which by definition, presumably are going to remain non selective, you have two tiers? SHEPHARD: Yes you would... HUMPHRYS: The brighest kids go to the Grammar Schools, the less bright kids go to the other schools. SHEPHARD: Now look, you're falling into your very worst habits. You are not only asking the questions, but also answering them as well. I seek to answer them, you are interrupting. HUMPHRYS: Oh, I think I've given you a very very reasonable time. I mean, come on, you've explained in great detail what you are proposing to do. I am trying now to elucidate it a bit. You say you do not like the two-tier system. If you have a system of Grammar Schools, to which the brightest of the children go, and if you have a sytem of Comprehensive Schools which are non selective, then you have two tiers, do you not? SHEPHARD: Well, I will seek to elucidate, if you will allow me to do so. And I will say again that I think that one of the major achievements of the Government's education reforms has been to create a diverse system of schools. I have already enumerated what they are, I won't do it again. As part of that diversity, selective schools have an important place. What we don't want to do is to force schools to go selective, but we do want to allow them to go selective if that is the wish of their Governors, of the parents, of the Heads and that would be the purpose of the White Paper that we put forward in June. But what I don't expect is that it will result in a diminution of the diversity which exists in the system because I believe that that diversity, as it stands, is already very popular. We want to make it easier for those schools to go selective that wish to do so, and I don't imagine it will be all. HUMPHRYS: Bob Dunn said in that film that he wants
to get shot of the LEAs altogether, do you? SHEPHARD: I noticed that he said that and certainly one of the other proposals in the White Paper in June, will be to extend more self government to all schools. Now grant-maintained schools, of course, already enjoy complete self government, and LEA schools manage a large part of their own budget, but there really is an inexplicably wide variation between what some local education authorities allow their schools to spend, ninety-five per cent of the total amount available, and others say eighty-five per cent. Now there's no doubt that this independence - managing your own budget, managing your own affairs - releases an incredible energy and initiative and innovative spirit in grant-maintained schools and indeed in those schools that handle the most of their budget and we want to develop that. HUMPHRYS: How does that and a lot else of what you've said here this morning fit in with your desire for stability and recognition that what education needs now is a period of stability. It seems pretty radical, some of this. SHEPHARD: Some of it is pretty radical. And certainly, I did want to achieve consolidation when I was first appointed. You have to remember that I've been in this job, although it's changed beneath my feet, for nearly two years now. I wanted to achieve a period of consolidation and stability within the national curriculum. We have, of course, introduced testing now, we are just looking again at the framework for inspection. But you do actually have to develop policy, you have to look at what is successful, you have to look at the aims which are to increase choice and diversity to push up standards. That's what I'm doing. HUMPHRYS: Gillian Shephard, thank you very much. ...oooOooo...