John Moss: Missing the point in the grammar schools debate

John Moss is a regeneration property developer and Conservative activist from Walthamstow.

The Grammar Schools slanging match shows how politicians and commentators on the right have missed the point – both about what Margaret Thatcher really did and what people really want. The debate shouldn’t be about whether selection is good or bad, it should be about whether it is any business of the Government to make that choice in the first place.

David Willetts did not change Conservative policy in his speech to the CBI. Yet his comments have unleashed a predictable, yet frustrating flood of comment and counter-comment.

Simon Heffer said "Grammar Schools are the best way ever invented of helping people to get on". David Willetts suggests that because very few children at Grammars are demonstrably from impoverished backgrounds, they aren’t doing that anymore. Boris Johnson points out that 50% of parents in Islington buy extra tuition for their children and Andrew Pierce in the Telegraph reminds us that parents whose kids were entitled to free school meals at his Swindon comprehensive, nevertheless scrimped and saved to pay anyway, to avoid the stigma.

All this suggests two things to me. The first is that the Conservative leadership and those advising them have possibly missed one of the most important things about what Blair has done to politics – though he is only following the lead Margaret Thatcher set.

Blair and the New Labour cheerleaders only ever talk about outcomes. They don’t talk about how things will happen – sometimes it is clear they don’t even think about how things might happen either – rather, they talk about what they want and what people want. That they have failed to deliver is rapidly becoming apparent and people have rumbled this, hence their dissatisfaction. However, the Opposition still has the luxury of being able to talk about outcomes rather than the process of delivering them, but we forgot to do this last week.

Margaret Thatcher was no different – in her early years – the methods weren’t clear and defined, but the stated outcomes were and they were in tune with the people’s own instinct to have more control over their lives.

The second thing suggested to me about all this is that there are still far too many people who don’t fully understand what Thatcher actually achieved. There are lots of things they can point to, like privatisation and the changes in union legislation, but they miss the underlying point that the policies actually achieved a fundamental shift in the way people thought and acted.

The major changes in the 1979-1987 period forced people to accept that they were responsible for the choices they made and the decisions they took. There wasn’t going to be a big government there to buy out a filing company crippled by strikes, there wasn’t going to be a fat subsidy to keep un-economic nationalised businesses in clover. In the economic sphere at least, Thatcher practiced, trusting people and sharing responsibility. Not everybody wanted to be trusted and to take that responsibility, but enough did and they drove things forward to the benefit of everybody.

A very small start was made to extend this idea to health and education with GP Fundholding and Grant Maintained schools, but it was too little, too late and the undoubted benefits, (why else have Labour brought both back in after initially scrapping them), were insufficient to save the Conservatives from defeat in 1997.

Under Labour, we have seen a retrenchment of old instincts. The levers of power are once again wielded in Whitehall, they still don’t work very well and we all pay the cost. Where they have gone back to versions of Conservative structures like City Academies and Primary Care Trusts, they have been hemmed in with targets and outside interference. It is unlikely this will change under Gordon Brown and it seems strange that we would not seek to differentiate ourselves from his likely stance.

The mistake Cameron’s Conservatives may be in danger of making, is to accept the position as they may find it on winning an election and seek simply to manage that position better. Just as we did when we bought into Atlee’s nationalisations and the big government of the Welfare State, after we regained power in the early fifties. I can’t see today’s liberated consumers accepting that kind of "under new management" approach.

My conclusion is that if we truly do believe in trusting people and sharing responsibility, that means that it should be no business of Government to tell schools how they should choose their pupils, or for that matter what they should teach, which exams they should sit, or who should or should not be allowed to set up and run a school.

The government should make sure that every child has access to education and leave it to parents to decide which school they take their child to on the basis of what they think is right. It should do this by trusting parents with the money to buy the education they think is right for their child. That way we don’t have to talk about "how", because we won’t be in control of "how" anymore.

The result will almost certainly be more schools who choose by academic achievement, but there will also be those who choose by geographic catchment, some who choose by faith, others still who choose by ability in a special subject, music, dance etc. Committed adherents to mixed-ability teaching can set up their own schools and wait for their customers to pitch up.

The Conservative Party response to anybody who asks how we think schools should choose pupils, what they teach or how they teach it should be, "not bothered".

The Swedish voucher scheme, on which Conservative policy at the last election was modelled, has been a success and is overwhelmingly supported by all the main political parties, parents and the trade unions. It has seen the number of schools increase, the size of schools fall and the performance of almost all schools rise. If we want to make sure that every parent has the chance to send their child to a good, local school, having more schools to choose from would be a start. It takes five years to open a new school in the UK. In Sweden, you can open one in three months.

Of course, I myself have just made the mistake of talking about "how" rather than the outcomes, but I needed to do that to illustrate this point.

Blair, Mandelson et al, changed the political frame of reference. Politicians used to stand up and say, "This is what I believe. If you agree with me, vote for me". New Labour turned that into, "This is what you believe and we agree with you, so you can trust us". People were let down and now they have lost all trust in politicians of whatever stripe.

Policies which genuinely empower people and genuinely give them more responsibility and control over their lives, create a sense in people that they are being trusted, rather than being asked to place their trust in others. I think that is what the Conservatives achieved 20 years ago. They offered support to people who wanted to get on and trusted them to do so. That released a huge amount of energy, innovation and investment and our economy is still thriving on the back of that today. Imagine what could be achieved if we were able to recreate half of that in education and health through funding parents and patients, rather than schools and hospitals?

Comments

[Rachel Joyce]

I must agree. What we need is freedom for parents and schools.
As I said in one of the first postings on the grammar school debate, just look at what happens with private schools - parents and schools are both free to choose. This freedom results in some selective schools, some specialist schools, some with special needs specialisms etc etc. Schools are also free in the private system to expel pupils who are behaving badly.
We need to take state interference (not state funding) out of our education system, trust the parents and professionals. The only need for regulation is perhaps publication of exam results and banning the promotion of religious or other hatred (such as the Wahabi school in London). Otherwise - let them get on with it. Better for children from all backgrounds.

[clive elliot]

Interesting to see that in Sweden the size of school has fallen when freedom is granted.

I've always thought that our comprehensives are far too large; the one where I'm a Governor is 1300+, and hereabouts they go up to well over 2000. Far too big. Nobody can give individual attention to that many pupils.

In the private sector, top secondary schools average about 500 to 750, and that seems to be the 'natural' size.

Comprehensives have to be structured bigger so that they can support a viable VI form. That's why the remaining Grammar schools are mostly smaller, because they can support a viable VI form out of half the number of pupils.

A sensible voucher system as proposed here would bring about smaller schools, in turn meaning pupils wouldn't have to travel so far, as well as all the other values of liberty so tellingly enunciated by John Moss.

[Mark Wadsworth]

"The Conservative Party response to anybody who asks how we think schools should choose pupils, what they teach or how they teach it should be, "not bothered"."

Excellent, excellent! Although you could say it a bit more nicely.

[Alison Anne Smith]

Are you the former "Culture Club" drummer?!

[David Cooper]

"The mistake Cameron’s Conservatives may be in danger of making, is to accept the position as they may find it on winning an election and seek simply to manage that position better."

Exactly - the ratchet effect of socialism, whether applied to the current education debate or indeed any other issue. Or to put it another way, that's the danger of wanting to be the heir to Blair rather than resolving to disclaim the legacy.

[malcolm]

I think you may be mistaken John when you draw a parallel between CTCs which John Major introduced (only 15 were ever built as they were expensive) and City Academies that were introduced much later by Blair. CTCs could interview both children and their parents before confirming a place whilst City Academies can only choose 10% of their pupils by 'aptitude' (in certain subjects)not ability. CTCs do seem to me to be a genuine attempt to appeal to those who are educationally aspirational but happen to live in a deprived area, City Academies on the other hand seem merely to be inspired by political gimmickry.I hope I'm wrong about that as it does seem that City Academies are going to be the way ahead whoever wins the next election.

[Anon]

Good points, well made.

Alison at 11:22 - no he's not. This John is much better looking

[Carolyn]

This is all focused on secondary schools. What about the primary schools who for decades have been teaching reading 'in any way they like' giving us one of the highest adult illiteracy rates in Europe? Unfortunately not everyone can be trusted to do the right thing.

[Matt Davis]

Excellent piece John, very well said indeed. Don't hold out too much hope of you being listened to at 30 Millbank though, it's all far to much like a conservative idea for them.

[Mary O'Boyle]

We all know grammar schools give a wonderful education.But since the 1960 they have become the property of the comfortably off middle classes.Catchment areas have become full of desirable houses.Middle class parents educate their children privately untill age 11, then take unfair advantage and enter them in 11+This means there is little compettion, children from poor backgrounds have no chance. Build more Grammars in poor areas and help the underpriviledged as these school did in the 1920's to 1950's

[Nick S]

Having benefited from a - partial - grammar school education and being married to an assistant head in a grammar school where a substantial proportion of kids do come from 'less advantaged' backgrounds I despair at the party's very public declaration that 'selection' is no longer the 'way forward'.
Abandoning any attachment to, or support for, the grammar school has a whiff of New Labourite dumbing down about it.
Surely the courageous solution would be to ensure that the very kids who are under-represented in grammars are identified, encouraged and educated appropriately as was the original idea?

[Adam]

Isn't there a contradiction between wanting to give parents the power to choose schools, but also wanting to schools the power to choose the kids?

[Tony Woodcock]

Exactly right. In the Macmillan ear we had a policy of "better management of Socialism" Now we have "better mangement of Social Democracy". We either fight for conservatism or die.

[Sally Roberts]

Interesting article, John and, taken to its logical conclusion arguing perhaps for all schools to be removed from the State system? That would certainly be a radical solution but unlikely ever to happen.

I understand what David Cameron and David Willetts have been getting at, but I believe the "grammar schools row" has been very poor public relations for us as a Party. Not handled at all well.

[Denis Cooper]

Mary O'Boyle @ 12:56 -

"We all know grammar schools give a wonderful education"

Only to children for whom that kind of education is suitable. I would like to
see other schools which gave an equally wonderful education to children for whom the grammar school kind of education was not suitable. Instead we
have children subjected to a kind of education which suits very few of them.

[Denis Cooper]

Although this proposal seems fine in principle I wonder how it would work out
in practice. In particular whether a rump of children with incompetent and/or empoverished parents would be left with a rubbish school (or even no school
at all) in their local area, once all the competent and/or wealthy parents had sorted out the most suitable education for their children. For the sake of those children I would want safeguards against that happening, first through the LEA and secondly through HM Inspectors appealing to the Secretary of State for Education to inquire and if necessary to intervene on behalf of the children.

[John Hayward, The Difference]

Good to see someone else also arguing the case for education vouchers. When you put all the evidence together, it really adds up to a compelling case.

[Sasha]

Denis Cooper @18:34

"whether a rump of children with incompetent and/or empoverished parents would be left with a rubbish school (or even no school at all) in their local area, once all the competent and/or wealthy parents had sorted out the most suitable education for their children".
That is such an apt description of what happens with comprehensives currently, through catchment areas and house pricing.

[Ian McKellar]

I've posted on this debate before but following the debate other points strike me.
There seems to be a general acceptance that Grammar Schools work/worked but Secondary Modern's didn't. So why then did we abolish many of them in the 1960s/1970s and seek to introduce a system on failing schools plus?
Now as for the remaining 164 Grammar School catering for the middle class, the nature of local government elections and Ted Heath's policy of allowing local councils to decide meant that once Labour or Liberals took control of an LEA, Tory Policy was incapable of resisting such proposals apart from those Counties and Boroughs that stayed with the Tories i.e. a strong middle class bias reflecting those areas (apart from Surrey where Councillors who educated their children at public schools were unconcerned about the state sector)
The answer is to put more per capita money into the Secondary Modern schools. It was a disgrace that they were so underfunded- Let's aim for Butler's aspirations for Technical Schools which by their nature will cater for the needs of the majority of our children. Grammars can and should survive and indeed expand but the real and exciting developments should be in creating those Technical Schools

[John Moss]

Alison @ 11.22 - no, but I did play the drums in a wicked R&B band before I went to Poly.

Anon @ 12.32 - easy tiger, I'm married.

To Dennis Cooper @18.34. I guess this is where Hayek's market theory kicks in. ALL parents don't have to be engaged and committed, because everybody will benefit even if a smaller number do this on their behalf. The "disadvantaged" actually get something of a free ride, which is quite a neat solution, because it is the "advantaged" parents who will be committed and involved and their efforts will therefore help the "disadvantaged".

To Ian McKellar at 00.14 - The element of the Butler Act which never got seen through was the Technical Schools.

It is interesting that in West Germany after the war, Butler and Beveridge were the templates used by British civil servants when they set up the structures in the new Germany. The damage done by Bevan & Atlee by not following or denuding these two great leads is evidenced by the great difference between the two countries thirty years later.

[William Norton]

This is a dangerously sensible article, making reasonable and well-argued points.

[Denis Cooper]

I'd like to think that you're right, John. But being a cautious type I'm imagining
a town where the parents were mostly competent, well-educated and at least fairly affluent, except in one large area where almost all of the parents were incompetent, poorly-educated and on low incomes. I find it hard to convince myself that the competent parents would always be sufficiently altruistic to concern themselves about the standards of the school that was available to
the children who had the misfortune to live in the "sink" area.

[Anthony Sutcliffe]

I went from a council estate to the local grammar school in 1960. My parents were poorly educated and, partly through lack of suitable guidance, I was not able to take full advantage of the opportunities that presented. Working-class ethos meant that I could not wait to get out and earn some money - the idea of more years at university were a total anathema. The school had a "minor public school" mentality and I despise Rugby football, so we didn't seee eye-to-eye.I took one GCE, (uncollected), and never returned.
Nonetheless, and with the particular benefit of hindsight, I can see what I might have done with such opportunities and how I might have achieved my present success with rather less physical effort.
The destruction of grammar schools is vandalism on the same scale as abandonment of "Times Tables" and phonetic reading in favour of trendy, and obviously useless, alternatives.
Cameron is, I fear, a prime example of the trendy and obviously useless. We've waited all this time for the merest hint of a policy and when it does arrive, it's one of Blair's, second hand.
Thank God my parents couldn't afford a "public" school such as Eton or Fettes!

[ToMTom]

It is interesting that in West Germany after the war, Butler and Beveridge were the templates used by British civil servants when they set up the structures in the new Germany.

Funny that because Germany's welfare system is Bismarckian not Beveridge-based; and the US Zones were in the South where Gymnasien are still highly selective and they rank top in PISA studies.

The British Zones are where the SPD built their power bases and where Gesamtschulen aka Comprehensives have caused declining numeracy and literacy

[ToMTom]

Let's aim for Butler's aspirations for Technical Schools which by their nature will cater for the needs of the majority of our children.

We had a superb Technical School which is now simply a Comprehensive and calls itself a Grammar School

[prziloczek]

The standard of debate on this thread is very high compared with Wondir and Tiscali.
Did anyone else actuallyr ead Mr Willett's speech? He mentioned that the problem with vouchers is that there are not enough schools. He likened it to giving everyone a free rail ticket and then not increasing the number of trains.
The most exciting thing about his speech was almost entirely invisible: we need far more schools. The whole point of Charter Schools is that anyone can start them up if they are a teacher. This means that lots more small schools will spring up. Pretty soon, parents will see where their children will fit in. they will be enormously varied in size, intake, attitude, religion, race etc etc.
Grammar Schools can easily be set up too, if you can find the teachers who will do it.
Me, I've had enough of very clever children. Perhaps if Mr Willetts had been a little less clever, he might have got across some of the excitement which he ought to have generated.

[prziloczek]

The standard of debate on this thread is very high compared with Wondir and Tiscali.
Did anyone else actuallyr ead Mr Willett's speech? He mentioned that the problem with vouchers is that there are not enough schools. He likened it to giving everyone a free rail ticket and then not increasing the number of trains.
The most exciting thing about his speech was almost entirely invisible: we need far more schools. The whole point of Charter Schools is that anyone can start them up if they are a teacher. This means that lots more small schools will spring up. Pretty soon, parents will see where their children will fit in. they will be enormously varied in size, intake, attitude, religion, race etc etc.
Grammar Schools can easily be set up too, if you can find the teachers who will do it.
Me, I've had enough of very clever children. Perhaps if Mr Willetts had been a little less clever, he might have got across some of the excitement which he ought to have generated.

[agentmancuso]

"That way we don’t have to talk about "how", because we won’t be in control of "how" anymore."

This is a good principle. The role of the state should be to provide financial access to education for all through taxation, and to ensure certain minimum standards. Otherwise, schools should be left to develop in whatever ways society prefers.