Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “standards”, insert “of educational attainment”.

No. 58, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “standards,”, insert—

‘(b)promoting emotional well-being,’.

No. 95, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—

‘(b)enabling each child concerned to have access to such teaching and learning support as may be appropriate to his needs and so as to promote the fulfilment of his educational potential.’.

No. 186, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out ‘educational’.

No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert

‘and

(c)promoting the transfer of knowledge from the current generation to the next.’.

No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert

‘and

(c)raising the educational attainment of the most disadvantaged.’.

No. 86, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert

‘and

(c)contributing to the well-being of children.’.

No. 87, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(1A)In subsection (1)(c) “well-being”, in relation to children and young people, is a reference to their well-being having regard to the matters mentioned in section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004.’.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

It is a pleasure to recommence where we left off before lunch. I note that the sunny spring skies of this morning have clouded over, and it is now rainy and dark. I hope that that does not mean that the Committee’s sunny disposition will become stormier this afternoon. I am British, Mr. Cook, and feel the need to refer to the weather as often as possible.

We were discussing amendments to do with standards of pedagogy and had had a good and interesting debate. I must say, however, that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) went “off on one”, so to speak. We heard a lot about Melanie Phillips and Chris Woodhead. Wise as both those writers are, one skill that I hope young people in our schools are developing is that of not depending too much on one data source to make a case, and I think there was a little of that this morning.

I strongly agree with the points made on both sides about the importance of high standards and ensuring better reading, writing and mathematical skills, and about our educations system’s important role in developing knowledge in young people. I shall identify how the Government are already ensuring that that happens and how the Bill will take it forward. First, however, let us examine the amendments.

I do not have particularly strong objections to amendment No. 2, but it is unnecessary to add “of educational attainment” to “high standards”. It is clear that high standards of educational attainment are contained within the overall duty on high standards. Local authorities will certainly be in no doubt of that, not least given the Government’s record since 1998 in challenging local authorities to bear on pupil attainment in schools, and supporting them. Our successful national strategies on literacy and numeracy led the way.

I accept that the hon. Gentleman has played an important role; he has long been interested in the role of phonics, and synthetic phonics in particular. Let us not be under any misapprehension, however; the literacy strategy introduced by the Government put phonics at the heart of literacy teaching, and our review, led by Jim Rose, will ensure that synthetic phonics plays the role it should in building on our success so far.

That should be linked to our strong and decisive lead on measures to tackle the number of weak and failing schools, which demonstrates that we cannot allow poor schools to carry on failing our children. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) said, that has resulted in there currently being half as many failing schools as there were in 1997. Our programmes, such as excellence in cities and London challenge, have brought resources and the benefits of school collaboration to the most deprived areas of the country.

All those measures highlight the fact that the responsibility to deliver high standards introduced in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 is already leading to increasing standards of educational achievement. They also demonstrate the focus that the Government and local authorities throughout the country place on those standards. That is the driving force behind the Bill.

Amendment No. 3 leads us to knowledge transfer and, in particular, the wish of Opposition Members to add what would be an extraneous—even otiose—requirement to add knowledge transfer to the existing local authority duty to promote high standards and the fulfilment of the educational potential of every  child. The first point to remember is that the clause bears on all the education functions of local authorities, not just those related to teaching and learning. I am not unsympathetic to the idea that education should be about the transfer of knowledge from generation to generation, and we must therefore make it clear that that is already a key role of the national curriculum. The national curriculum handbook states that the school curriculum should:

“Pass on enduring values, develop pupils’ integrity and autonomy and help them to be responsible and caring citizens capable of contributing to ... a just society.”

It also says that the curriculum should

“contribute to the development of pupils’ sense of identity through knowledge and understanding of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages of Britain’s diverse society and of the local, national, European, Commonwealth and global dimensions of their lives.”

As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, a well rounded education should surely cover both the acquisition of knowledge and the development of skills, particularly learning skills, and the ability to continue gaining knowledge and developing skills and attitudes throughout our lives. That is why we believe that young people must have a rigorous and stretching educational experience at school, while also developing the skills to enable them to do well in further learning and work, and in their communities. We have consistently taken the view that the curriculum must provide rich and varied contexts for learning and offer all young people the opportunity to develop and acquire a broad range of knowledge, understanding and skills.

On amendment No. 4, it is heartening to see Conservative Members turning their attention to the disadvantaged. If I remember rightly, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) gave us a small history lesson about Shaftesbury, Wilberforce and Disraeli, which was good. I welcome the instillation of that knowledge.

Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)

All good Tories.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

I am pleased that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings identified the contribution made by Conservatives. I was identifying the historical knowledge that informed his contribution. However, my skills of critical evaluation and analysis, honed during the 1980s when I was a pupil, student and teacher, do not lead me to believe that the Conservative party’s objective has always been so. While the amendment’s proposition is a welcome one, I am not yet in a position to depend on the Conservatives to put disadvantaged children at the heart of our education system. I shall explain, therefore, why the Government are ensuring that that happens and how the Bill will take it forward.

Standards have risen since 1997. Then, a third of children left primary school without the skills in English and Maths necessary to make progress in the secondary curriculum. In 2005, 79 per cent. achieved those standards in English, and 75 per cent. achieved them in Maths. Pupils aged 11 to 14 have benefited from improvements in teaching and learning from our  secondary strategy, and national test results for 14-year-olds show the best ever results in English, maths, science, and information and communications technology. In 2005, schools achieved record improvement in GCSEs, which is testimony to the hard work of teachers, head teachers, governors and support staff, backed up by this Government’s investment and reform.

The reforms have meant striking improvements for children from all backgrounds, but I accept that the evidence shows that there is still an attainment gap for pupils. That issue is at the heart of this education reform. More than seven out of 10 pupils in receipt of free school meals do not get five higher-level GCSEs. When we look more closely at the statistics, we clearly see that particular groups do less well than their peers: children from particular black and minority ethnic groups, white working-class boys, children in public care and those with complex and problematic family lives all experience poorer outcomes throughout their educational careers. It was because we were unwilling to accept that situation that we introduced the Bill and the education reform that it supports.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I am grateful for the Minister’s acknowledgement of the severity of the problem facing some of our schools and some of the children who attend them. She is absolutely right to say that poor schools tend to be located in areas of disadvantage; it is not universally so, but it is certainly a tendency. We share her determination to give a new opportunity to the most disadvantaged young people—we see education as an escape route from disadvantage—so why on earth will she not reinforce that determination in the Bill? To do so would seem entirely consistent with what she articulated and with the spirit that she claims underpins the Bill.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

I shall come in a moment to the reason for framing the duty as we did. Suffice it to say that the Secretary of State told the Education and Skills Committee that the White Paper is all about driving up standards for the most disadvantaged children. We have made it clear that we are happy for the measure to be applied when judging the success of the reform programme as a whole and the White Paper and the Bill in particular. That is why we set out a programme of activity over the next three years to deliver more personalised learning with a special focus on helping groups at risk of under-achieving by providing small-group or individual tuition for pupils who need help to catch up in English and maths and offering exciting opportunities to stretch the brightest pupils by providing access to study support and out-of-school activities to children from disadvantaged families who have not had the opportunities that depend on family background. We have also identified a range of systemic and organisational barriers to equity, and the Bill brings forward provisions to bear upon those.

We are creating a fair admissions system to ensure that all children and their parents have a fair chance of accessing the schools they want and ensuring that children are not let down by the performance of their  school by taking action to improve those schools faster and more decisively. Clause 4 ensures that we identify those children who are missing education. Surely they are most likely to be disadvantaged and to lose out. There are strong proposals on discipline later in the Bill. All those provisions are aimed at ensuring high standards for everyone, but with a particular focus on disadvantage.

We considered how to embody for local authorities those aims for excellence, equity and tackling disadvantage. We concluded that we wanted a positive duty couched in terms of individual children and their potential rather than a category or list of children grouped by circumstances or level of disadvantage. That is why I believe our formulation is better than that proposed by the Opposition, but I hope that they are in no doubt that the clause will have the effect that they seek in ensuring that disadvantaged children and young people benefit from the proposals.

Amendment No. 95 would more narrowly define how fulfilment of education might be achieved by limiting it to teaching and learning. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) made it clear that he is interested in exploring the extent to which our approach to personalised learning and teaching is part of our proposition in clause 1. It is clearly absolutely key.

The current wording refers to all local authority functions and allows for a range of strategies to improve a child’s educational potential, including access to teaching and learning support, which will be central to any strategy. As I suggested earlier, that includes other elements such as the planning of school places, access to admissions, transport and so on, which go beyond teaching and learning. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend identifies an element key to ensuring that every child can fulfil their educational potential. That is how we will develop personalised learning in our schools.

In the White Paper we announced significant new funding to support personalised learning. In the Budget last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor added to that £565 million a further £365 million by 2007-08. Schools can use those funds to support a range of learning opportunities that are much more clearly tailored to the needs of all children; however, those learning opportunities can include small-group and one-to-one catch-up classes for those falling behind, as I suggested. The funds could also be used for stretching opportunities for gifted and talented children, or on extra support for vulnerable and minority ethnic groups.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North did not intend this, but the effect of his amendment would be to support those things while ruling out some other local authority functions that I know he believes also have a bearing on a child’s attainment, such as those to do with the admissions system, transport, pastoral support, or extended services; they would not fall within the clause. My hon.  Friend and I certainly want to ensure that local authorities have every weapon at their disposal as they seek to promote high standards and ensure that every child in their area fulfils his or her potential. That is what the clause will do.

Finally, my hon. Friend’s amendment No. 96 seeks to remove an important, although in some respects quite technical, provision that already exists in current legislation; it is in section 13A of the Education Act 1996, as amended by the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998. I am not sure of his intention. The wording that the amendment would remove acknowledges that some education functions are not susceptible to being exercised in a way that would promote high standards or the fulfilment by every child of his or her educational potential. An example would be duties that are principally technical or related to process, such as the requirement under section 44 of the Education Act 2002 to provide copies of maintained schools’ accounts to the Secretary of State, or those responsibilities that admit of no discretion, such as the duty to modify a school’s instruments of government to reflect a change in name. Those are important duties; they are education functions of local authorities. However, it is hard to envisage their being carried out in a way that promoted high standards and the fulfilment of the potential of every child. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that relatively technical reason for the addition of the relevant words in the clause.

As I have said, we had a good debate this morning. I hope that it has enabled me to reassure hon. Members. There was not one proposition made this morning with which I did not have considerable sympathy, given the objectives of the Bill. Our debate enabled me to identify why we think that the current drafting enables us to ensure that the well-being of the child, and the way in which educational achievement and the fulfilment of potential are supported, is recognised. We will continue to focus on high standards of teaching and learning, and that will be backed by considerable extra resources and support, and by other reforms that this stage of the education reform process will put in place. With those reassurances, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

This has been an interesting, good-humoured debate, reflecting quite a bit of consensus. To an extent, I expect that that is because the Opposition supported the Bill on Second Reading, but there is also some consensus on some of the underlying issues to do with our education system.

I was heartened to hear that the Minister wants to ensure better schools, and better reading, mathematical skills and knowledge among young people. Those are important issues, and it is good that we have agreement on them across the Committee. They are not really motherhood and apple pie. The Minister wants better knowledge among young people; that makes a statement that I hope will be heard in our education institutions and universities. I hope that they will hear that that is the direction in  which the Government are taking the country’s education system. I hope, therefore, living as we do in a democracy, that they will take note of those points and not pursue an ethos or ideology that counters that view.

The Minister referred to amendment No. 2 and said that the phrase “educational attainment” was unnecessary because it is clear from Government action, on the basis of their record, that they believe in having higher standards of educational attainment, and that the phrase therefore is not needed. The right hon. Lady cited the national literacy strategy, which I accept. I happily acknowledge that it has led to a rise in standards. It was completely unacceptable that only 56 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieved level 4 in reading in 1996, and we should be trying to find out why. It was not just because John Major was Prime Minister, and before that Mrs. Thatcher. If Labour Members were intellectually honest, they would acknowledge that the huge move towards the real books and whole language form of reading in the mid-1980s made a considerable contribution to the decline in literacy. At last, we have a Government who are tackling that, and I pay tribute to the Minister and the others in her Department for their work to get synthetic phonics on to the statute book, as I hope, and thereafter into classrooms.

The Rose review and synthetic phonics are important because they tackle the long tail of under-achievement—the 25 per cent. who, even with the national literacy strategy are still not reaching the required level in reading. Synthetic phonics tackles that 25 per cent. more than any other group in the classroom because its essence is that no child can leave a class in the first two years of infant school without having grasped the basic decoding skill and being able to decode any word effortlessly. Too many children in the bottom 25 per cent. cannot do that basic thing—decoding any word, regardless of whether they understand its meaning. Once they can do that, they can ask their parents or teacher what a certain word means because they can read it. Synthetic phonics is geared to that bottom 25 per cent and is a key link to amendment No. 4, on which we are so keen, and to which I will return in a moment.

The Minister talked about amendment No. 3 and the knowledge transfer between generations. Again, I was heartened that she was sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment. Its purpose was to draw out debate in Committee and throughout the country about some of the pedagogical and curriculum-based issues that do not get enough air time as we focus on structure and money in education.

The right hon. Lady said that knowledge and skills are needed. As I said this morning, I do not want to be caricatured as taking a Gradgrind approach to education; that is not what it is about. Clearly, children need skills. What is a skill? It is being able to do multiplication tables and effortlessly know that eight sevens are 56—as I hope they are! [Laughter.] Don’t ask me any more. To be able to do that effortlessly is a skill but also knowledge. There is a strand of opinion  that says that that kind of knowledge is not necessary in the world of computers and calculators. I beg to differ.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) and I are members of the Select Committee on Education and Skills and the hon. Gentleman will remember that we took evidence from Professor Adrian Smith who said that children need to know their multiplication tables by heart because it gives them an instinctive understanding of numbers. If they go on to become nurses in hospitals, they need instinctively to know the difference between 10 ml and 0.1 ml, especially if they are giving a patient an epidural. These are crucial issues. Professor Smith said that it helps to develop the synapses in the brain of young children if they learn by rote and by heart in their early years of education. These things are very important.

I do not want to caricature an issue that involves a combination of knowledge and skills, but the skills-curriculum-knowledge debate is slightly different in academic circles. It is about whether a child should have the skills to decipher a historical document, and whether those skills are more important in some parts of the curriculum than knowing the full facts and timeline of the history of this country and of Europe. The timeline, factual side of the history curriculum has been reduced at the expense of historical skills, which most children do not really need.

I was heartened by the Minister’s response to amendment No. 4, but I am afraid that I will ask the Committee to divide on it. There is no harm in stating in the Bill the desirability of

“raising the educational attainment of the most disadvantaged”.

She was wrong to say that the Opposition have recently been converted to caring for the disadvantaged. I believe passionately—I know that phrase is overused in politics—that the increase in progressive education in the 1960s has done enormous damage to that group, which is why I cited the case of how not having synthetic phonics in the teaching of reading has damaged children in the bottom 25 per cent. of academic ability. Social mobility has declined in the past 30 or 40 years, when being traditionally educated was a way out of poverty and deprivation for children. The fact that we no longer have such rigorous education has done huge damage to the groups of children that I have mentioned.

I do not accept the Minister’s argument that amendment No. 86 is unnecessary owing to the provisions of the Children Act 2004. She said that section 10 of that Act places duties on local authorities to promote the well-being of children. I cannot understand the argument that putting such a requirement into the Bill would lessen that duty. One cannot lessen a duty by obliging local authorities to

“contribute to the well-being of children”.

I will ask the Committee to divide on that amendment as well if the Minister persists in not accepting it. I therefore wish to press amendments. Nos. 4 and 86.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I, too, think that this has been an interesting debate, and, I must confess, a more wide-ranging one than I had  anticipated. I thank the Minister for clarifying the point that new section 13A of the Education Act 1996 will stand in addition to the existing words dealing with the wider aspects of spiritual, moral, mental and emotional development. There is nevertheless a point of principle about the need to link the present Bill right at its beginning with the Children Act 2004. It is a shame that the Minister was unwilling to accept the need to include in clause 1 a broad, general approach to well-being and an onus on local authorities to consider it. I have no wish to press the amendments to a Division, but we will later consider whether to take matters further.

We will not support the Conservatives on amendment No. 4, because we entirely accept the Government’s argument that that matter is dealt with by the reference to the performance of “every child concerned.” We feel no need to identify one group of children in particular. However I accept the point that the Conservatives made, as does the Minister.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

I agree completely. Does the hon. Lady accept that putting such a word as “disadvantaged” in legislation brings with it considerable legal challenges in defining what is meant?

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I suspect that the Minister is right. I think that the terms in the clause are broad and include all children. The clause needs to be broadly drawn, but I persist with the point that it would have been helpful to include a reference to emotional well-being at the start of the Bill. As I said, we will not press the matter but will consider whether to take it forward on Report.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

Six hours have elapsed since we began debating the amendments. Time passes so quickly on these occasions. Who would have imagined when I initiated debate with my harmless amendment, No. 96, that we were opening the Pandora’s box of discourses on human reason that has preoccupied us for the past few hours?

When I left my flat this morning and was walking to the House looking forward to Committee proceedings, I knew nothing about “the third thing”. The new Conservative party—or, as it should be known from its desperate attempts to reinvent itself, the newborn Conservative party—has created an intellectual underpinning in the “third thing” concept, which will doubtless sweep through the intellectual bastions of western Europe and transform our politics in the years ahead.

In tribute to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I must say that I absolutely support his attempts to transform our education system by raising standards and reducing the grotesque inequalities between high and low achievers that have always disfigured the British educational system. That gap is now closing. I have no reason whatever to doubt his commitment. From my discussions with him in the  bars of various European capitals and the back seats of minibuses on Select Committee visits—perhaps that was where the third thing was hatched—I am absolutely convinced of his dedication to the cause.

However, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s method of arguing his case by setting up a stereotype of what he believes are the weaknesses of the current system and then dismantling it. Setting up and destroying stereotypes that bear no relation to reality actually invalidates the argument that one is trying to put.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the education system as bedevilled by what he calls 1960s progressivism. What strikes me about 1960s progressivism is that most of its main tenets have been absorbed into the mainstream of our social, political and cultural life, to the great advantage of the nation. I worry when he argues his new Conservative, third thing philosophy that he is really taking us back to the early 1970s. He quotes many academics in support of his argument, but the real intellectual guru to whom he should refer is Professor Brian Cox of Manchester university, who in the early 1970s published the series of “black papers” that paved the way for Sir Keith Joseph’s attempt to restructure our education system completely.

Unlike the Opposition, or at least Opposition Front Benchers—I am not sure that Back Benchers agree with them—I do not see this debate as a contrast between conservative and liberal approaches. It seems to me that the real issue in education policy today is not the distinction between progressives and reactionaries but the distinction between those who think that there is one solution to all our problems—a single way forward, be it the teaching of reading or the organisation of children in their classes—and those who believe that a multiplicity of approaches must be tried. I am of the tradition of letting a hundred flowers bloom, and I hope that the Committee can be persuaded of that approach as we move through our proceedings.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

When the hon. Gentleman checks the record later, he will see that I said exactly that in my contribution. I do not take a narrow view on methodology, but there are some fundamentals in this debate, including raising expectations for and of all our children and re-establishing the primacy of the educator’s role. Those truths stand well beyond detailed debates on methodology, do they not?

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

No one would disagree. The hon. Gentleman takes me to my second point in winding up, which concerns the flaw in the Opposition’s approach. We saw it to some extent in the Budget debate last night. On the one hand, they continuously reiterate that the way forward in education policy must be to increase the freedom of schools and teachers, while on the other they argue simultaneously that the way forward must be to adopt a single method of teaching reading, a single kind of curriculum content or a single way of organising children in the classroom.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

The fact is that there is now a single method. The approach that I have described is prevalent in the majority of state schools in this country. It is difficult for a parent to find a school that adopts methods used in the most successful state and private schools. I want the methods that work in the most successful schools to be more prevalent throughout the system and the way in which to achieve that is to tackle the philosophy that is dominant in the overwhelming majority of schools because of the philosophy that is dominant in the educational establishment. I want a more diverse approach. At the moment, there is a homogeneous approach in education.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

I applaud the hon. Gentleman’s determination to open up a public debate about the curriculum. It is long overdue. He has done a service in pressing the point. However, his characterisation of what takes place in state schools is not one that I recognise. I did not recognise the stereotyping of many state schools as bog-standard comprehensives nor did I recognise his description of the diversity of practice within state schools as a single method of teaching dominated by the educational establishment of the 1960s.

My third point concerns the relationship between learning and knowledge. It is absolutely self-evident that the acquisition of knowledge is a necessary, but not sufficient, precondition of a good quality education. The Opposition are assuming that knowledge can be separated from the application of knowledge or from the capacity to acquire further knowledge. There is a significant dividing line between the Government and the official Opposition because we believe that knowledge is not fixed or rigid.

In this era of globalisation and rapid expansion of information technology that has resulted in an explosion of knowledge and an explosion in access to knowledge of which previous generations could have only dreamt, the role of the teacher needs to change dramatically. The fact is that rote learning under the instruction of a teacher is arguably far less effective than simply enabling children to acquire knowledge directly from a computer.

Angela Smith (PPS (Yvette Cooper, Minister of State), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Sheffield, Hillsborough, Labour)

Is it not the case that, for children who suffer from dyslexia and dyscalcula, it is incredibly important that we adopt a range of approaches? Rote learning is not always appropriate for children who have trouble recognising words and numbers, and decoding them.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

That is correct. It relates to the point made towards the end of the response of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton about the bottom 25 per cent. being able to decode language. It is important that children should be able to decode. He is overlooking the fact that many children in what he describes as the bottom 25 per cent. of the ability range will have specific learning disabilities that will prevent them from ever decoding in a way that most of us would find necessary for everyday life. It is not possible to make sweeping statements about particular  forms of teaching of reading, given the enormous diversity and range of ability and learning disabilities that our children experience.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the type of knowledge that young people are required to learn changes from one generation to another? Merely comparing what one generation learned at one stage with another generation and saying that standards have fallen is a false comparison. As he has just described, knowledge is exploding all the time, so the knowledge that is relevant changes at each stage.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

We do not want to get into a debate about the relative merits of mediaeval history and media studies. That may be for another part of our deliberations. I agree completely. It is especially because of the dynamic society in which we live and the impact of globalisation and IT that we must recognise that the acquisition of knowledge itself is an insufficient precondition for an excellent education.

An Opposition Member—I apologise for forgetting who—cited Einstein as an example of someone who could not have achieved what he did without a body of knowledge. I agree: Einstein is—or was, sadly—an excellent role model. However, I doubt that he is typical of most young people in our schools today.

This set of amendments, of which my amendment No. 96 is the lead, has cast an interesting light on clause 1. Many things in the clause could be expressed differently. Disadvantage, the “Every Child Matters” agenda and the Children Act provisions are important. However, it strikes me as a remarkable contradiction that the Conservatives want to press to a Division the amendment relating to disadvantage because, ironically, when we had a similar discussion on the Education and Skills Committee’s report on the education White Paper, the Conservative members of the Committee argued precisely the opposite point. The majority of members of the Committee were trying to introduce a specific reference to the importance of dealing with disadvantage as the prime objective of policy, but the Conservative members argued against such a reference. That debate resulted in what I thought was quite a good compromise, but I still make the point.

In respect of the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), I am still struggling to understand the principle on which she refuses to read Melanie Phillips. Perhaps she can tell me later, because I am desperately searching for a reason not to read Melanie Phillips.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools responded to the debate carefully, thoroughly and sensitively, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.