Any questions for David Willetts... about grammar schools?

Shadow Education Secretary David Willetts certainly hasn't been hiding since the grammar schools row took off.  He's been all over the broadcasters patiently answering all questions and has twice contributed to ConservativeHome (here and here).  I thank David for that and for today's initiative in inviting ConservativeHome readers to submit your "toughest" questions on Tory grammar schools policy.  Please use the thread below to pose a question for David or email me with it.  I'll then choose ten questions that represent the topics you all raise and submit them to him.

Comments

[Peter Blair]

The real problem with your comments was not that you were not going to re-introduce grammar schools, as this seemed unlikely, but the tenor of your comments about middle class parents. Surely this is the type of aspiration the Conservative Party has always encourage and should keep doing so, instead of being scolded by those who think they know better?

[michael mcgough]

What are the main educational differences between city academies and bog-standard comprehensives?

[Annabel Herriott]

I think it is the way to go by "aggressive Grammar school streaming" There is one downside that you need to prevent, and that is, how will you prevent the mindless yobs who lurk along school corridoors, and school gates, from picking off the bright children? The Yobs might be lazy, they might be underachieving, but that does not stop them from being very jealous and vindictive. They ARE there, no matter what protestations any particular school wishes to give, and they are very very damaging.

[Simon George]

David
I am interested in your assertion that even in areas where Grammar Schools remain, they "entrench advantage" (because middle class parents dominate such schools).
Such schools are few in number and, being a scare resource are bound to find a price mechanism that reflects that scarcity. The pricing mechanism we have is effectively ‘house price’ for these schools.
However that does not mean per se that grammar schools cannot act in the future as the mechanism for social mobility they have undoubtedly acted as in the past. It only means that whilst they remain scarce they will not.
So my question is; why exclude the possibility of expanding their numbers, so reducing the “price” of Grammar Schools allowing the disadvantaged a greater likelihood of getting into them?

Many thanks for your kind attention

[HF]

Do you now acknowledge that highlighting the issue of "no more grammar schools" was a blunder?

The Sunday Telegraph stated yesterday that it was "unnecessary".

[Matthew Dear]

Simon George - I'm not sure I go along with your assertion that house prices act as a pricing mechanism for grammar schools: surely this is more the case with non-selective schools in large conurbations which have gained a reputation; accelerated away from 'the pack'; and for which it is necessary to live in catchment and as close to the school as possible.

I could send my children to any grammer school in Buckinghamshire for which they pass the 11+ (lucky them!) and I live in an area which is only marginally above average for house prices and which borders some of the most deprived wards in SE England.

I'd like to ask David Willets - would he assert strongly the need for intelligent and rigourous streaming within schools, in the absence of new grammar schools?

[Man in a Shed]

I'd like to second Peter Blair's comment (May 21, 2007 at 09:08). What is really annoying is to be told that middle classes are dominating the little good education on offer in the State sector. Well we paid for it - why shouldn't we get the sort of education for our children that you can personally afford through the independent sector ? It its our children's future that's at stake here, the question should be why isn't this type of education available to everyone who can use it ? (Hint there aren't enough Grammar Schools, and yes maybe city academies that are allowed to select on a basis other than cricket or music. ) [ Do you remember Oliver Letwin's comments on sending his kids to a state education before the last election ? ]

Do you recognise the massive anger that the style of the delivery of your policy statement and the way it has been rolled out - bouncing the party - has caused ? Will you apologise and promise this will never happen again ? Will you withdrawn the policy and agree to consult properly this time ?

[Robert T.]

Two questions:

1) Could Mr. Willetts please explain why it is acceptable to separate children by ability within schools but not to separate children into different schools on the same grounds?

2) Would Mr. Willetts allow the city academies that he is promoting to select part or all of its intake on academic ability?

[N]

You base your argument that grammar schools do not promote social mobility on statistics relating to the number of pupils entitled to free school meals. Do other indicies of poverty corroborate this finding? 30% of the pupils at my former school are from the most deprived quintile. 50% of pupils are ethnic minorities, many of whom speak English as a foreign language. This might not be typical, I concede, but it is one example of a grammar school that does not entrench privilege.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

If Grammar schools are failing to deliver social mobility and in essence aren't the best way forward educationally (a justification for not wanting NEW Grammar schools) how can we justify keeping existing Grammar schools?

[deborah]

Can the state afford to provide the very best "kit" to cater for all abilities - academic and technical - at all secondary schools without relying on corporate sponsorship or significantly increasing the average school size?
At what point does a school cease to be a nurturing environment and start to feel like a factory?

[1AM]

As a former Grammar school boy, I find this area extremely interesting.

Question 1)

Mr. Willetts, as we all agree Grammar schools help the children who attend them, do you believe:

a) That children in an area with grammar schools, who themselves don't get in to the grammar school, are disadvantaged?

b) That children in an area with grammar schools, who themselves don't get in to the grammar school, are NOT disadvantaged?

If a) then surely we should abolish all grammar schools - as we are harming the education of the vast majority to benefit a small minority. We should also seriously look at abolishing private schools - which also have too much of a middle class bias and elitist standards. I wonder how many children on free school meals are at Eton?

If b) then we should surely be arguing for the expansion of grammar schools as they benefit the 25% who attend without any loss to those who do not attend.

Your defence of the status quo is illogical and confused.

2) Why on earth can we not have all the positive proposals you outline (which have sadly been overshadowed in this row) in your speech AND Grammar schools?

I am at a loss at to why we can't both have more Grammars AND streaming etc.?

3) If it is true that changes in society have led to children from poorer homes getting into Grammar schools, why not outline a fund of £X million (axe some LEA bureaucracy) to pay for bright children in weak and disadvantaged areas to have remedial teaching in the run up to the 11+ - to give them some of the advantages that children who come from stable homes, with parents who can coach them/pay for coaching, have?

My final question then is:

When did the Conservative Party Education Policy be determined by the idea of levelling down rather than providing hope and aspiration? And what would be wrong with the fund idea proposed above?

I woudl like to say you have been an excellent and thoughtful contributor in general. I hope those who attack this policy remember this.

[ThatcherBoy]

You are concerned - rightly - about social mobility. As you will know, this is an incredibly complex societal factor that requires (by definition) decades of evidence to evaluate.

We are only now aware of declining social mobility in Britain as a result of studies evaluating people who went to school in the 1970s (versus the 1950s).

Whatever the merits or otherwise of grammar schools now, we do at least have the evidence to hand to say they aid social mobility.

No such evidence exists (or could yet exist) for city academies - the earliest having been around for only five years.

If the Party is concerned about social mobility, why support city academies when there is not yet any evidence that they aid social mobility (whatever else they might be achieving)? It is entirely possible that they could become just very expensive "bog-standard" comprehensives (minus playgrounds) where standards flat-line in the long-term and all the problems of inner-city schooling (classroom discipline, drugs, high staff turnover etc.) persist.

If no direct evidence on social mobility (not examination results) exists for city academies, is this commitment to build more of them just blind-faith in the wisdom of Lord Adonis?

[Piers Thompson]

"44 out of 49 of the best performing schools which “added value” to their pupils’ attainment levels at Key Stage Three were grammar schools" - Michael Howard in a Speech to the National Grammar Schools Association.

It is clearly the case that pound for pound Grammar Schools provide a better education than Comprehensive Schools and it is even recognised by the government's own "value added" tables as doing so.

If they provide pound for pound the best education and therefore in educational terms they are they most efficient "service providers" shouldn't we open up more of them? Or is giving taxpayers value for money no longer important to the Conservative party?

[clive elliot]

I've been for many years a secondary school Governor is Surrey. In the 1970's the (Conservative) County Council abolished its grammar schools amid huge outcry. There were never enough Grammar Schools; under 20% of children went to them when it should have been about 50%, hence the political demand for their abolition with about a third of children deserving Grammar Schooll education but missing out on it.

Since then the big thing that's happened has been the appalling and continuing decline in literacy and numeracy among the Yr7 intake, so that our comprehensive spends half its time trying to teach kids things they should know already.

At least with the 11+ the primaries had a target to strive for, and parents were really interested in making sure the schools got there. Current testing by comparison is useless in advancing performance.

It was a vital factor in the education system, and I ask Mr. Willetts to take on board that selection is an essential element in making primary schools work properly.

[Simon George]

Matthew Dear,

The pricing argument holds whether it is grammar or non selecting comprehensive. It is about scarcity of supply, not status.

But to expand my comment to clarify;

The other side of the price mechanism is demand. There is an ever larger and more affluent middle class who dominates demand for a relatively fixed supply of "good" schools.

As long as grammar (or the best non selective's) schools are scare then the demand will price out the poor by one method or another.

My question was addressing what I understood was David's criticism of Grammar schools failure to improve social mobility.

I.e it is scarcity of good schools that is the problem, why discount the possibility of expanding the one 'class' of school with a proven track record of enabling social mobility on the ground they are currently too few in number to have any effect?

[Piers Thompson]

In Northern Ireland where almost half of children are educated at Grammar Schools, 42% of children from poorer backgrounds go to university compared with 28% in the rest of the UK.

If the Conservatives are serious about improving social mobility shouldn't we learn lessons from Northern Ireland and aim to have more Grammar Schools in the rest of the UK?

[Alex Fisher]

1. Why have you completely ignored the findings of the Party's policy group on education which was reaching conclusions very differeent to your own?

2. As a well-put letter noted in the Telegraph today, poorer families are put off applying to grammar schools in their present form as they know they could well be given a failing sink school as an alternative should their child fail the entrance exam - that is most likely the reason for your school meals staistic. Why, then, don't you just reform the admissions system to make it fairer to such children?

3. What are your views on private schools? Could state funded places at independent day schools be a feasible alternative to grammar schools as the High Master of Manchester Grammar School suggested in the Telegraph? The Assisted Places scheme was a great success - would you bring it back?

[Piers Thompson]

Mr. Willetts cites a Sutton Trust study showing 2 per cent of pupils at grammar schools receiving free school meals compared to an average for the local area of 12 per cent. But the same problem affects comprehensives. The Sutton Trust has also shown that only 5.6 per cent of pupils at the country’s top 200 comprehensives qualify for free meals, compared to a national average of over 14 per cent.

How exactly does Mr Willett's plan to change that?

[Tory T]

Dear Mr. Willets,

I read your policy as essentially a much-needed return to traditional educational standards.

Can you tell me if I have got it correctly?

Under the Conservatives there will be no new comprehensives - all new schools will be CTCs or Academies/faith schools

And all schools will have

*Traditional subjects
* Power to expel disruptive pupils easily
*Traditional teaching methods like synthetic phonics
*Selection by ability within the school into sets and streams?

If this is correct, why on earth is it being attacked as in some way left-wing.

Can I ask you to consider going still further down the traditional route and overhauling either our examination system or the way in which grades are awarded under it. Grade inflation is rampant now to the point where children who cannot spell or use basic grammar get A grades in English GCSE.

Lastly, have you any comment to make on the fact that last week Gordon Brown promised to "end innumeracy" amongst 11 year olds? After ten years in power under the slogan "Education, education, education" it is a bit pathetic we have large numbers of innumerate children going to secondary school. Will your traditional teaching methods and streaming by ability help?

[James Maskell]

If we object to the creation of new Grammar Schools for their effect on social mobility, how does our new stance on selection affect specialist schools, faith schools and private (public) schools?

[Matthew Dear]

Simon - why are you still going on about pricing? It has little to do with economics. Entrance to grammar schools, where they exist, has only a very limited relationship to catchment.

If my kids pass the exams for a grammar school in Aylesbury (some 20 miles from my house) and I can get them there, they can attend it.

More significantly, the same holds true for the child of a bankrupt immigrant on income support on one of the adjacent council estates - though they may need to opt for a school much closer from which subsidised transport is available.

That is the whole point of grammar schools, and is why so many Conservatives support the principle. It's all about ability. Yes, some parents may be able to afford coaching, or long-distance taxi journeys, but to claim that this then establishes some kind of indirect pricing is utter baloney.

[mark]

Does the Conservative Party wish to promote simple equality or equality of opportunity. In making your judgement please consider that any family without sufficient income to send a child to a private school relies on the state to provide a range of options from which to choose. If you consider the option of an academically elite school in every area which allows bright hard working pupils to study without interference from anti-social thugs to be wrong then you must say that a Conservative government will abolish all private education at the same time. If you fail to make this universal judgement on selection then you are guilty of discrimination.

[deborah]

Piers at 10.40,
The logical next step - we should means-test all good schools!
Clearly we must redress the balance whereby the middle classes benefit from their own hard work.

[deborah]

"Under the Conservatives there will be no new comprehensives - all new schools will be CTCs or Academies/faith schools"

If there are to be no grammars surely all of these will be comprehensives?

[Alex Swanson]

Surely half the problem here is not the issue itself, but the perception that the views of hundreds of thousands of loyal supporters are of less interest or concern to the leadership than the views of BBC and Guardian journalists who would never support you anyway?

[Simon George]

Matthew
ANYTHING that involves a scare resource compared to demand involves economics and it is “baloney” to think otherwise.
Regardless of the official criteria for entrance in selective or non selective entrance price plays its part, and to deny the undeniable, namely that (for example) house prices have local variations that are dependent on local schools is clearly nonsense. Indeed pricing comes in other forms to (or more to say; barriers to entry) – the level of education of the parents being one well established example.
I am pro-grammar school. It is David Willets that make the charge that existing grammar schools are elitist and “entrench advantage”. I am arguing that this is more a reflection of how rare they are, not their structure.

[Tory T]

Hi Deborah

No indeed - comprehensives follow a bog standard one size fits all style of education. No streams and sets, no specialities, no individual local choice as to how schools are run.

CTCs and to a lesser extent academies offer far greater choice and freedom for parents and local groups. Comprehensives are the most left-wing style of education and we will eliminate them entirely.

The CTC in my area uses streams, sets, traditional teaching, uniforms etc. It has no playtimes and no discipline problems, no gangs and outstanding results (sorry not to say where, I prefer to post as an anon). It looks like a public school and every parent locally wants in. If that's on offer instead of "Grange Hill" then I for one will be cheering from the rooftops. Anyway let's see if Mr. Willets chooses my question to answer, he will have enough to choose from!

[James cullis]

Dear Sir,
can you tell me whether we as a party support selection in education as im passionately in favour of it. I believe we should favour a policy of selection in all levels of education due to the fact that at the moment i believe to many people are at university doing courses that are not really appropriate for a degree. Does the tory party agree?
yous James Cullis

[RobD]

Are you able to give more information Cameron's "Grammar stream in all schools" comment? Taken at it's most literal this could actually be a large improvement on the current situation, but I have yet to see details proving that this is the case?

[Bill]

If social mobility is your objective, and if grammar schools don't deliver it, please explain logically (and not on the basis of "choice") why you don't deprecate private/"public" schools?

[Matthew Dear]

Simon - I'm sorry to say that I still disagree: not with what you say about supply/demand which is of course irrefutable, but with your application of it to this irrelevant concept of "pricing", which betrays a failure - or an unwillingness - to look at the 'smaller picture' as I like to call it.

While I disagree with (or fail to see the genius of) your method, I do however agree with the conclusion: that any evident elitism is a product of grammar schools' rarity and that the solution is to commit to creating more.

[DuSanne]

Dear Mr Willetts,

I hope this isn’t too off-topic for consideration, but the only concerns I have over what has happened is in the last week or so lie at a slightly different level.

I actually have a lot of time for the ‘streaming within rather than between’ having been through a comprehensive with a mixture of streamed and mixed ability teaching and saw how effective the former can be.

My concern is the focus on the issue right now, not because the grammar school question might prove politically inconvenient, but shouldn’t the focus at the moment be on higher education? I can’t see our next PM doing anything especially radical when he gets his mitts on the reins of power, but when it comes to Universities he has form. We know Broon has certain views in this arena (a warped view of supposed Oxbridge ‘discrimination’ etc) that would be an anathema to those on both sides of the grammar school debate here. It’s also an area where we have at least some reputation for excellence that, outside Oxbridge, seems may be under threat of the same dumbing down as has plagued GCSEs (another more worthy target than grammar schools in my opinion).

Good TV performance on Sunday morning though – good to hear a clear personal position on the FOI business.

[Edward Huxley]

Many excellent grammar schools (two near here, one in Ashford Middx. the other in Egham Surrey) were destroyed by changing their status to sixth form colleges. All that needs to be done is to change them back again to grammar schools-no need to build hundreds more.
Why not do this?

[Dan Hassett]

As a Conservative activist in Folkestone, I have long argued the benefits of our selective education, which I continue to support rigorously. However, in future, I will be expected to defend a new policy that states that Grammars are bad for the poor and are unfair, but should not be abolished locally.

How do you propose that I make that case to floating voters on the doorstep?

[deborah]

Hi Tory T
comprehensives follow a bog standard one size fits all style of education. No streams and sets, no specialities, no individual local choice as to how schools are run.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Comprehensive simply means not selective. My daughters go to a comprehensive which displays all those wonderful characteristics of streams, sets specialities and choice.

CTCs and to a lesser extent academies offer far greater choice and freedom for parents and local groups.

No they don't - they simply have a more modern-sounding name. It's just rebranding to make people feel they're getting something new and different.

[Jonathan Powell]

I saw you on the Andrew Marr program on Sunday, and you said the problem with grammar schools was that by the time poor kids were 11 they had fallen too far behind, so it tended to be the middle class kids that got into the grammar schools and thus you claimed they did nothing for social mobility. Surely, if this is true, the answer is not to give up on grammar schools but to improve primary education, say by having a voucher system, or perhaps having selection at a younger age? In other words, why not try using one of your "two brains" to think outside the box, rather than just copying Labour's policies?

[Anne-Marie]

I see you are in favour of rigorous streaming which I welcome. However, would you give consideration to an 'idiot' stream? This would be for ALL the pupils who do not behave, as contray to common perception badly behaved children span all ability and socio-economic groups. At my comprehensive school (which I only left 6 years ago) the top stream had just as many badly behaved pupils as lower sets.

'Idiot stream' pupils would have normal work to do as well as undertaking activities such as litter picking, taking chewing gum off desks etc.

Also, what would you do to prevent the malicious bullying that continues to be rife in our schools?

[Conand]

Dear David,

These are really tough questions but...

Is it right for the government to cover up the fact that GCSE results in Core subjects (English, Maths, A science, A modern european language etc) are actually worse now than in 1997?

The results with NVQs etc have gone up.

But should the Conservatives follow Labour education policy and accept the creation of an educational underclass or should we be more ambitous for every child in the country?

I think you should have moderated your tone vis a vis Grammar schools: 'entrench advantage'. The basic policy point is however absolutely right.

[DavidTBreaker]

I have a few questions;

Do academically gifted children - the future scientists, brain surgeons and nobel prize winners vital to human development and the country's future - perform better in grammar schools or in comprehensive schools? Should their development, and thus much of society's progress, be held back in the name of equality?

You state that children from better off backgrounds receive coaching for the 11-plus exam. This is certainly true. Most however only have very minimal tuition in this way. Is the argument then not to scrap the 11-plus but to introduce coaching for the exam in state primary schools for those taking the exam so that the effect of any extra coaching is minimal if it has any impact at all, thereby removing this inequality and restoring the exams integrity?

You also state that "the cognitive skills of a low ability child from a high income background gradually improved relative to the performance of a high ability child from a low income background. If you think of this as two curves, the performance of the high ability low income child declines while the performance of the low ability high income child improves. The two curves cross over long before the age of 11." Is this not an argument against selection, but an argument for selection earlier?

Is the percentage of people receiving free school meals a sensible indicator of the social backgrounds of pupils? This is not an indicater of all pupils, just those at the very, very bottom. Do you think some do not claim their free school meals to avoid embarassment?

Do you think it is fair very bright children are forced to attend comprehensive schools where they will be bullied for being "nerds"? Do you not feel a school's culture has an impact on academic achievement?

Why are exam results higher in Northern Ireland, where they have the 11-plus, in particular among the academically gifted but also among those not attending grammar schools? You put this down to social factors. How does being a socially divided, sectarian country with a long history of violence, no government for years, crazed politicians who have only just agreed to go into the same room and lots of militant murials on houses make for an academically flourishing society? How come NI doesn't score so much higher on non-academic IQ tests such as Test The Nation.

Do you think the answer is technical schools, as well as grammars?

Why do your children not attend local state schools? I've no problem with private schools, I support them fully, but if you think grammars harm social mobility aren't private schools even more damaging? Why did you even mention grammar schools? Surely you knew the uproar it would create? Why didn't you discuss private schools which far outnumber grammars?

What would you do if a front bencher resigned over the issue?

[tired and emotional]

Dear Mr. Willetts

I personally like the fact that the leadership has had the courage to say to that the education system is broken and that we need to fix it for the good of the country as a whole, rather than simply provide more lifeboats.

Let’s say we get in next time and we create a schools system which is responsive to parent’s requirements, open to new providers, based on a blend of traditional methods and tested innovation, where the money follows the child and where discipline is firmly in the gift of the teacher.

How will we measure the success or failure of this system given rampant grade inflation and GSCE-level qualifications given out for non-subjects?

Can there be a return to the system where only a certain number of people could get an A grade for example, so that only the very top marks in any given year could achieve As?

Will marks begin to be deducted for spelling mistakes? I won’t use the G-word.

Will exams and coursework be refocused so that they cannot be marked by computer but must be evaluated by trained examiners and therefore the papers can be more complex and demanding?

Will we start teaching subjects again rather than the PC line on what should be learnt from all those troublesome dates, kings and empires?

Will we scrap the makeweight subjects or drastically downgrade them?

More than one question I apologise.

T&E

[Richard]

If you believe grammar schools are not the way forward then why aren't you calling for the abolition of those that still exist? If you accept that the ones that exist are a good thing (which presumably you do) why don't you want to see more of them?

Why shouldn't local people be able to choose whether or not they want a grammar school?

[Matt Wright]

David, To compete globally in a fast changing and complex world I believe that the characteristics we will require across most organisations are more flexibility, more devolution of power etc. What are the main ingredients of the educational mix that we will need and would streaming in schools be more efficient at getting more of the population better educated than grammar schools?

[Matt Wright]

Sorry I will just add an amendment to my above post to slightly better explain what I am getting at:

David, To compete globally in a fast changing and complex world I believe that the characteristics we will require across most organisations are more flexibility, more devolution of power etc. This will place great emphasis on empowerment with the need for higher abilities across the board for employees and increasingly at lower levels in organisations. What are the main ingredients of the educational mix that we will need and would streaming in schools be more efficient at getting more of the population better educated than grammar schools?

Matt Wright

[Tory T]

Deborah - some do, most don't. That will end under our policy. Specialisms will be allowed. Traditional teaching will come back. It's a great deal.

[Andrew Lilico]

David,

In 2001 we had a free schools policy, and my understanding from Nadine Dorries is that the education subgroup of Cameron's Public Policy Commission may be inclined to recommend that at least some schools are free to determine their own admissions criteria. Following your speech, would it be feasible for you as Education Secretary to permit schools, choosing for themselves, to adopt academic selection as their basis of admission?

[cb]

Having suffered streaming following the demise of grammars in my area these schools can be as devise as some think selection is at 11. Those in the lower streams are badly served, expectations are low and motivation is a problem. Surely improving the lot of the poorest in our society must start before eleven. Nursery vouchers that can be used with any provider and topped up must be better than the current - socially engineered model we have at present. Also more attention needs to be given to primary education. I would like to ask David, would his polciy allow grammars to expand and set up academies?

[Ted Broadbent]

I hope this gets noticed all the way down here!

My question(s) for David:

When one of the emerging themes of Conservative policy is localism, how does the pledge to remove the local referendums on whether to keep existing grammar schools fit in with this theme?

And if the party was really keen on localism shouldn't Conservative policy be to expand the referendum system to allow parents to vote to set up grammar schools if that is the will of the local community?

[deborah]

Tory T,
Perhaps it would be better to avoid sweeping statements which can't be substantiated. Let's just deal with the facts.
Grammars can offer something different - a whole-school academic ethos. What exactly can academies and CTCs offer that is not already practised in good comprehensives?

[Geoffrey Warner]

Mr Willetts:
Bright children of wealthy parents can be educated in private schools which select their pupils on the basis of academic ability. Why cannot bright children from poorer backgrounds enjoy the same opportunity in the state sector? Why, indeed,is selection on the basis of academic ability for schools regarded as so wrong, when everyone accepts it on the basis of sporting ability for football teams and musical ability for orchestras? Yes, people will be excluded from some schools, but that does not mean they are inferior any more than I am inferior because I could never have played for Chelsea or in the London Symphony Orchestra. Everyone should be educated in schools which develop their potential to the full and, contrary to the fashionable nostrum, this *is* a question of structures as well as standards. There should be a variety of different types of school, including one which caters specifically for the academically gifted, and not just comprehensives or city academies. If we fail to recognise this, all the problems we now face in education will only get worse.