-
- guardian.co.uk, Thursday July 13 2000 17.54 BST
Regrettably, Nick Davies's latest series on schools took us no further towards solving the problems which many of our children face. If anything, Tuesday's anonymous allegations of cheating will have reinforced the idea that it is all hopeless. This corrosive proposition, that nothing can be done until poverty has been completely eliminated, undermines the drive to raise standards and the excellent results which teachers are achieving. It suggests that those of us who found education to be the ladder out of poverty should have accepted our lot in life rather than seizing the opportunity which lifelong learning gave us.
Davies suggested that the exam system was fraudulent, without providing a shred of evidence. This is a disgraceful slur on hard-working heads and teachers across the country. The implication was that if they weren't cheating, they should be because several people whom Davies declined to name said they knew someone who cheated.
This is not only poor journalism but, more importantly, is deeply damaging to the youngsters whose life chances are being transformed. Should he let me have any names, I will ensure each case is investigated. But over the past three years, I have made sure that the procedures we use are consistent, fair and rigorous.
Literacy and numeracy standards have increased because we introduced a clearer focus through daily hour-long lessons, better teaching and extra money for training. I know it is difficult for cynics to accept, but the reality is that the literacy and numeracy hours have made a difference and teachers and parents know it.
Expectation is what matters most. If you assume that children from a disadvantaged background will fail, they will do so. If you believe they can and should fulfil their potential, there is a much greater chance that they will. I know because I was there myself. I know also because I've seen how good schools in poorer areas can and do make a difference.
That is what "Excellence in cities" is about. It started in 450 secondary schools last September and extends to others this coming school year. Each school ensures that the curriculum meets the needs of its most able pupils, regardless of background. They have money for on-site learning support units so that teachers can get pupils who misbehave out of the classroom quickly and without red tape.
The units are based on a model of proven success. They were piloted for three years and were independently evaluated. They improved behaviour, reduced the need for exclusions and were cost effective. That is why we recently announced funding for more than 1,000 units by 2002. These inner-city schools also get money for learning mentors, who, as full-time staff members, can tackle truancy and other social issues quickly, leaving teachers free to teach. Casually dismissing them as Davies does is to ignore the idea that such help should be available quickly and when it is needed.
This government is doing more to tackle the problems of discipline, exclusion and truancy than has ever been attempted before. We are spending £140m this year - compared to £17m four years ago - which is certainly not leading to any "simultaneous cuts" in spending on disaffected children. Quite the opposite.
On-site units are not a replacement for off-site pupil referral units. Where schools do have to exclude - and headteachers have my full support in excluding where they need to, for example, violent or seriously disruptive pupils - they will get a full-time education instead of an average of three hours a week as in the past. By 2002, all education authorities will be required to offer 25 hours a week to excluded pupils. In the past year there has been a net increase of 28 pupil referral units - there are more pupils on roll and contact time is increasing.
Education authorities most certainly do continue to have a statutory responsibility for truants outside school, contrary to Davies's assertions. They are responsible for making sure that children go to school regularly, and for taking action against parents who deprive children of their education. Far from simply "relying on heavier fines and home-school contracts" to cut truancy, we are funding schools to improve their monitoring of attendance and to chase up truants.
Davies is right that we do need more good vocational education. That is why we have provided more work-related alternatives for 14 to 16-year-olds, with new vocational GCSEs planned. It is why we are introducing more and better apprenticeships, new vocational A-levels and vocationally oriented foundation degrees.
Nobody is suggesting that schools can "be expected to completely neutralise the harsh conditions in which many of these adolescents live", as his article puts it. That would be absurd. It will take time, but we are doing more than ever before to confront and tackle the complex issues of social exclusion, both in our education and social policy. We are confronting the challenge head on, and putting our money where our mouth is.
I know there is more to do both to improve standards overall and to give youngsters from poorer backgrounds the help they need to succeed. I know we need to do more to help failing schools turn themselves around - pretending such failure doesn't exist would be a profound betrayal of children and their families.
However, in three years, we have seen real improvements in literacy and numeracy. We are spending far more on schools - in real terms £300 more per pupil this year than in 1997 and three times as much on capital. We are employing more teachers, have cut infant class sizes, introduced a better pay structure for teachers, turned around failing schools far quicker than before, improved access to computers greatly, provided 120,000 more free nursery places and are spending seven times as much on directly dealing with the problems Davies identified on Monday.
With next week's spending review, I hope we can continue this progress. But one thing is certain: we will only do it when pupils, parents and teachers believe they can make a difference and know that they can do it. To pretend otherwise, as Davies does, would be to consign a large number of today's youngsters to the scrapheap. I for one have no intention of accepting such a counsel of despair. I have more faith than that in the ability of our pupils and in the capacity of our teachers to make a real difference.
David Blunkett is secretary of state for education and employment.
