Hopefully – now that Labour’s leadership issue is ‘settled’ – we can get back to the politics of ideas that will shape and inform the agenda for the future. If Gordon Brown is looking for some radical, socially just and progressive policies that will appeal to the nation at large as well as reconnecting with the Labour party’s core vote then he should seriously consider bringing forward a bill that would end selection by ability in the state sector for good. Before I am accused of wanting to close good schools let me make it clear that I am not in favour of shutting down the remaining 164 grammar schools in England. Indeed, I would anticipate that in a post-selection world these schools would remain pretty much as they are now. They would have the same buildings, the same governors, the same head teachers and staff, the same resources, the same curriculum, uniform and largely the same funding. The only real change will be in the academic profile of the pupils that attend them. One would expect that if the quality of education really is as high as many of the pro-grammar school supporters suggest a more balanced intake would not have a hugely detrimental effect on standards.
One other reason for Brown introducing such a bill is that if Europe has long been the Tory party’s Achilles’ heel then a prolonged debate about the future of the 11+ could end up being its proverbial pain in the neck. It is now some nearly two years since David Cameron experienced his first – and so far his biggest – self-inflicted wounding when he “wobbled” over his and his party’s continued support for academic selection.
In June 2007 David Cameron called the defenders of grammar schools “deluded” and said that any debate about selection was “sterile”. Two years on and Cameron – though, I doubt, his party at large – is still apparently convinced that there should be no more grammar schools and no more selection by ability at age 11. What is puzzling therefore is why Cameron does not take the next logical step in this argument and campaign for all existing selection to end. Let me suggest why he is so reluctant to move in this direction: it is because the majority of the remaining 164 grammar schools in England are in Tory-held constituencies. Cameron is not opposed to selection out of conviction; rather he is in favour of keeping all existing selective schools out of cold, political calculation.
So could the continuation of the 11+ become a major issue at the next general election? One man who seems to think so is the combative secretary of state for children, families and schools, Ed Balls. In a speech to last year’s annual conference of the National College of School Leaders Ed Balls made clear his own personal position on grammar schools. “Let me make clear that I do not like selection,” he said. He went on to explain how some secondary modern schools are achieving good results despite the fact that they are surrounded by grammar schools. “I’ve heard first-hand how some of the young people starting in these schools feel on day one that they have already failed,” Balls told the audience of head teachers. Grammar schools and the whole issue of academic selection is a totemic issue for many backbench Labour MPs and there is little doubt that Balls and the Labour party in general will be keen to make selection an issue before the next election and that they believe a debate about the future of grammar schools will help in providing some clear dividing lines between the Labour and Tory front benches.
David Cameron often uses the term “progressive” when talking about the modern Tory party, but he knows that selection at age 11 is seen by many people to be an archaic and socially exclusive policy, he also knows that opening up a debate about this issue would produce a packet full of trouble for him personally. Tory party members and supporters of a particular age see grammar schools as offering escape routes from poverty for bright working class kids – they disagree with their Eton-educated leader and want to see more grammar schools under a future Tory government, not fewer. As yet, the Tory party has failed to outline a vision for schooling that will help meet the rising aspirations of the British people. Do the Tories favour an inclusive, comprehensive system that intrinsically values and caters for all pupils regardless of their economic or social capital? Or are they still in favour of a selective, two-tier, elitist system that helps perpetuate privilege and inequality? The answer to this question matters and Gordon Brown would be wise to start asking it.
why is it the left has to support abolishing grammar schools??? if anything we should build more of them!
Im a labour voter and i went to a grammar school and believe firmly that more should be build in deprived areas to give the kids something to aspire to and to help nuture the brilliant ones. Oxbridge would be full of working class children if grammars were built in inner city schools alongside well run academys and comps
Peter
The truth is that back when we had a grammar school in every town less than 6% of pupils went onto HE and the vast majority of them were from the affluent middle classes. Where is the evidence that selection offered escape routes for working class children?
@Mike Ion
Is the success of grammar schools evident in the composition of the Government?
Yes Mike but that 6% figure is from an age where the capacity of the university system could only hold 6% of the population. Now we have a whole raft of universities, many of dubious quality, in which to house people of all classes.
So now we have a situation where poor disadvantaged kids go to awful secondary schools, get rubbish A Levels and go to awful ex polytechnics. They are trapped in a viscious cycle of underachievement and debt, as their degree doesn’t give them any discernable advantage or opportunities. They leave university and do exactly the same jobs that their parents did, but are in several thousand pounds more debt.
Yes we have lots of kids going to university now. But for what exactly?
For the record, my parents acknowledge that they wouldn’t be where they are now if not for grammar schools. Both from working class backgrounds, both went to Durham, one a doctor and one a social worker.
Some form of selection and streaming is necessary, and it goes right up to university level. We aren’t born with equal intellects and aptitudes, and the school system should cater for the fact that we aren’t all cookie-cutter academics. Likewise, instead of pretending that every kid in the country should be going to study classics whether at Oxford or at the University of Teeside, we should acknowledge that ex polytechnics were of far more use to society when they taught practical skills.
To my mind there is nothing so idiotic as opposition to academic selection. Everyone is different, some people are geared towards academia, others to alternative lines of work. We already have an “inclusive, comprehensive system” in most parts of the UK, and it isn’t working.
You say of grammer schools: “They would have the same buildings, the same governors, the same head teachers and staff, the same resources, the same curriculum, uniform and largely the same funding. The only real change will be in the academic profile of the pupils that attend them.”
But miss the point that the pupils are what make the school. You can have the best teachers and facilities in the world, but put in some kids who are not academic and they will not achieve, and they’ll drag the school down too. The only way you can truly cater for pupils of all types is to have separate schools for different categories of pupil, and then rigorous selection within those schools.
Sure, there are problems associated with the grammar and 11+ system, but all systems have flaws. The concept of a wonderful, universal and perfect school for all children is idealistic nonsense. Fees should certainly be abolished in government grammars, but selection? We need more, not less.
My 2 girls are at grammar school currently.
Close the grammars down in terms of making them all non selective and I’ll just take the hit and send them private.
All you’ll do is reinforce academic selection by finance rather than by ability which seems a strange way to go.
I want my kids educated with kids from other families who also are comitted to academic education. I don;t want them doing “vocational” courses or lightweight GCSEs like “citizenship”.
What that basically means is I want my kids mixing educationally and socially with other middle class kids and staying well clear of the working classes.
Sorry but that’s my chioce and I’ll pay for it if need be.