Mark Field MP: The problem with grammar schools is that there are too few of them

Mark Field, MP for Cities of London and Westminster, argues that our education system needs more elitism and choice to achieve excellence.

At our best the Conservatives are the party of aspiration, opportunity and hope. We believe in choice because choice helps raise standards for all. Conservatives promote excellence, rather than equality. We want to see standards driven up to make the best available to all. This is in stark contrast to the Left, whose obsession with ‘fairness’ manifests itself in the levelling down of standards and opportunities to the lowest common denominator.

As a product of the grammar school system, I have been a lifelong supporter of selective education. Indeed it is probably the single most important cause of my becoming a Conservative. Grammar schools entrench excellence. There is little doubt that the underachievement in lower socio-economic groups in England over recent decades correlates directly to the demise of grammar schools. 

The contention by the current shadow Education Secretary, David Willetts, that ‘grammar schools entrench social advantage’ is simply wrong. Indeed if the elimination of social advantage in the education system is to lie at the heart of new Conservative schools policy, then presumably plans should be afoot for our Party to close down private schools forthwith. 

I am deeply ashamed that the Conservatives have come forward with this shallow gimmick of a ‘policy’ which betrays a lack of confidence in promoting Conservative principles in this crucial area of public policy. 
If modern Conservatism cannot reconcile the benefits of a grammar school education being more widely available, it will surely only be a matter of time before we water down our commitment to maintaining the 164 grammar schools that have survived decades of muddle-headed egalitarian thinking. For sure, too many of the remaining grammar schools are in leafy suburbs rather than our inner cities. This is largely due to the dedicated efforts of articulate parents in the 1960s and 1970s preserving successful grammar schools against the tide of closures which wiped out most inner-city grammar schools. 

As a result, the attendance rolls of today’s grammar schools are dominated by the children of better-off, middle-class parents. As an inner-city MP, I wish to see the entrenchment of advantage and education excellence extended to my constituents. Let’s bring it on with a commitment to greater choice, whether grammar schools or academies, in our cities. 

We live in a globally competitive economy. The offspring of the 2.5 billion strong Indian and Chinese population are hungry to take full advantage of all the benefits that top class education has to offer. The fact is that the British education system is not elitist enough. For this country to thrive in the decades ahead we must promote choice and excellence in our schools.

Related link: Martine Martin explains on CF Diary how selective education made her a Conservative

Comments

[malcolm]

Blimey! I did not expect this. Of course I agree with what Mark Field writes but am rather suprised at how forcefully he expresses himself. Hopefully we can have a friendly internal debate about this subject

[Bravo]

What an excellent piece. Thank God that there is a Tory Member of Parliament out there who believes in something and is prepared to stand up for what they believe in. I thought they were all dead.

I still cannot believe what a terrible day today has been. Bye bye Kent and other marginal seats where there are grammar schools.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I have to say this is quite a persuasive piece. I remember part of my degree being in the education department at the University of York where I had to argue that equality of opportunity was not the same as equality of outcome, something which my left wing friends of the time couldnt quite understand.

[Ouch!]

"The contention by the current shadow Education Secretary..."

Miaow.

[Thaggie]

i agree with the comments above. it's wonderful to see a genuine backlash, despite the fact that Dave is doing well in the polls. It proves that we Tories are not willing to sell out in the way that many Labour MPs did in the early '90s

[Paul Oakley]

Excellent riposte. This comes back to the importance of reconnecting with the less well off if we are to win the next election. That means a hand up, not a hand out. Many people cannot afford school fees or inflated house prices in a "good" catchment area. Grammar schools are the solution.

[Ben]

For heavens sake - whatever an MP's views, why do they always forget that what they say that is against the leadership will be used against the Party, and therefore needs to be very carefully worded.

Have we learnt nothing from tha past 10 years in opposition?

[bill]

Congratulations to Mark Field MP. At last it appears there is at least one conservative MP amongst the Conservative Parliamentary Party. If grammar schools are too good for the plebs then private schools should also be off limits, especially to Tory MPs.

[DAVID VINTER]

I am now 70, I owe a great deal both to my
local council primary school in Louth Lincs,
[ reading at 4, all tables to 12x12 by age five and a half, long division at 8 fractions and decimals by age 10. Took 11+ at age 10yr 4m. To Louth King Edward Grammar at just 11 [birthday in mid August], great education, freezing outdoor pool, good
cricket fields.Wonderful Maths teacher, like all the others he had been in WW2, so great war tales. We did everything with log
and trig tables, all english and other subjects had to be in correct english! Yes we need many many more, otherwise we will become a second world country.

[Damon Lambert]

A brave and brilliant piece which I fully support

[Joseph]

I wondered just how long it was going to take before Tory MP's started to show their disquiet in the way Cameron has been taking the Conservative party.
I must honestly admit I did not think it would be either Roger Gale or Mark Field who would rock the boat.
People do not want a Blair mark 2 it is time we moved on and if the Tory rank and file along with their elected MP's cannot make Cameron and Hilton understand this, then the Tories are going to spend another 5 years in opposition.
We need effective opposition not yes men or a carbon copy of the real McCoy.
Blair must feel truly flattered as one is reminded of the old adage about imitation being the strongest form of flattery.
Must Cameron/Hilton continue to copy Blair can these people not think for themselves. This Country is changing, what was right for 1997 is not necessarily right for 2007.
Grammar schools have been the correct way for both decades. They ought to be added to not reduced or left just as they are. They are and always have been an asset to our Country.

[Quite right]

Hopefully soon to be former.

The whole Education team is complete disgrace. It's been an open goal, they could have said interesting things and captured the imagination. Education is a prime concern of the British people. They are a failing team. Special measures are required.

This is primarily Willetts' fault. He may be good at intellectual analysis, yet appears to be completely incapable of innovative thinking. Why doesn't DC stick him in a back room - DWP or somewhere like that?

[Jonathan]

This is an excellent piece by Mark Field who has himself benefited from the grammar school system. Unlike certain people in the Party he seems concerned to share the benefits rather than pull up the ladder behind him.
It is probably a very brave or even a courageous statement for a backbench Tory but well done.

[Emily]

Hear hear! What an insightful and pertinent article. I agree wholeheartedly, and hope to see more from Mark here on Conservative Home in the future.

[William MacDougall]

Hear hear! Well said!

[Michael McGowan]

Very well put and of course the real issue is in Mark's last paragraph. The other day I saw a maths problem for Chinese university entrance and the equivalent for A Level. The level of expectation in the Chinese education system seems to be light years ahead of our own.

[Andrew Lilico]

This whole thing today seems like a rather silly debate to me. Cameron said he was agin grammar schools more than a year ago - or didn't you all notice? His people have only brought this up again now so as to remind the public of the position and in the hope that the sort of people that post on this site will complain, so they can dismiss us as reactionary nutters. I'm not sure why you are giving him the satisfaction...

To be clear: ruling out an expansion in grammar schools was a daft policy in late 2005 and its a daft policy now. But that's *mainly* because it's a *political* error to try to position ourselves so close to Blair on this issue. Cameron's people suffer from a flaw in their analysis: They believe that we were perceived as "very right wing" in 2001 and 2005 because people disagreed with our policies. I believe that people had no real idea what our policies were, but they knew what *topics* we were interested in - immigration; Europe; gypsies - and they (rightly) considered our *topic* interest (a) very right wing; and (b) a cover for having nothing coherent to say on more important issues such as health and education. By closing down radical discussion on health and education we play into the Cameroons' flawed analysis and cost ourselves opportunities.

On the details - well, today's stuff is all about the iconic term "grammar schools". But the City Academies will be selective education, as were grammar schools. (Even the best comprehensive schools involve selective education - selection by ability to afford house prices in the catchment area...) The point isn't in the details, here. It's the Big Picture. And Cameron's Big Picture involves, IMHO, a Big Mistake.

[Robert Winterton]

An excellant article,confirming my belief that we should roll out Grammers with multiple age entry (11+, 13/14+, 15/16+)across the whole country maximising opportunity to those who have the ability and minimising the benefit if any of 'middle class' coaching!

[Andrew]

Absolutely spot on. Let's hope more people follow suit.

What a disastrous week for Cameron - first, appallingly weak and soft-brained on Islam/Islamism; and now, selling Britain's least advantaged children down the river.

The honeymoon is over.

[David Sergeant]

Firstly it is not an "excelent piece", it just burbles out the old, simple, stuff we have heard before. No intellect is involved even though we all know Cameron has been on about Grammar schools for a long time. Why are Tory M.P.s so ignorant, this is an important subject requiring a lot more than a rant, when will the buffoons learn. As has been stated on several occasions we have been told there is a working party looking at this which has nothing to do with Blair (can we be a bit mature please) but is addressing what education system should we have which addresses the education of children which would not go to grammar schools, the vast majority.

[Ted]

You can't have choice and Grammars. Parents cannot choose to send their children to Grammars, the LEA/State selects. So Mr Fields paragraph "At our best the Conservatives are the party of aspiration, opportunity and hope. We believe in choice because choice helps raise standards for all. Conservatives promote excellence, rather than equality. We want to see standards driven up to make the best available to all. " is sophistry. He obviously believes only in raising standards for the few - standards are not driven up by one school selecting who it takes on basis of academic excellence unless parents can select that school. 11 plus and grammars mean they can't.

Developing Academies and pushing up standards in other schools, allowing parents to select those and enabling good schools to expand (and poor schools to close) that drives up standards overall.

I passed my 11 plus BTW so this isn't a Prescott rant.

[David DPB]

Mark is presumably aware that the Conservative Party has not meaningfully supported grammar schools in anyway for over 30 years........

[David Belchamber]

Ed - I have given vent to my feelings elsewhere, so won't repeat them (though writing them down does let off a bit of steam).

What would Chris Woodhead have to say about David Willetts' comments?
He at least has a thorough understanding of the current education scene.

Would it be possible to ask him to produce an article for ConHome spelling out (i) what he would do with grammar schools and, probably even more important, (ii) how to educate the disruptive youngsters who make life very difficult in the classroom for those who actually want to learn?

[Michael McGowan]

David, Mark Field deals with your point at the end of his penultimate paragraph. For 50 years, we have been told that the education system in this country benefited the vast majority of children in this country. In reality, it has benefited all too few of them and brought social mobility to a halt. It's a pity that the Party leadership has, like Gordon Brown, tried preemptively to close down debate on this issue; and succeeded only in producing a rehash of Labour's failures.

[Michael McGowan]

Ted, if I follow the logic of your comments, it applies equally to non-grammar schools which set. You can pick the school but you can't pick the set in which your child is in. So you seem to be advocating either mixed ability education, with no setting by ability, or no choice of school in the first place. This is currently the policy of the Labour Party.

[Dave Bartlett]

Mr Field's biography doesn't reveal any experience, or interest, in education.

[Michael McGowan]

Nor for that matter does David Cameron's.

[Richard]

"Bye bye Kent and other marginal seats where there are grammar schools."

To be fair the Tories haven't proposed the abolition of the existing grammar schools.

Estimating the number of votes lost by this policy is tricky. There was an opinion poll a while back that showed that while a majority of people believed getting rid of the grammar system was a mistake, only a minority wanted it reintroduced!

As long as we have a state-controlled system rather than total independence for schools then I remain convinced that a selective system will give the best results. We just need to convince the public (as well as the party leadership it would seem).

[bill]

How many Tory MPs passed their 11 plus? How many went to grammar, comp, or public schools?
How many send their kids to to state/private schools?

[Dave Bartlett]

@Michael McGowan
According to They Work for You Mr Cameron does take an interest in education, and Mr Cameron is supporting the conclusions of David Willetts, the shadow secretary of state for education.

(They work for you lists Mr Field's interests as "Libraries, Accreditation, United Kingdom Accreditation Service, Government Office for London, Licensing Act")

[Danny Webster]

re: Michael McGowan, before becoming the leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron was the Shadow Education Secretary

[Dave H]

I agree with the majority of what Mark Field writes, but not with those arguing for a wholesale return to grammar schools.

Many of the comprehensive schools in our Shire counties are very successful. Try telling parents in these areas that in future their child is going to have sit the 11+ in order to attend a 'good' school.

The real problems are of course in our failing inner city schools. I went to my local comprehensive in Sheffield in the 1980's. It was an average mixed school, where nearly all the local kids went. The real shame is not that I didn't have a chance to attend a grammar, but that at my school, there was little streaming in subjects, bright pupils weren't pushed, in report cards individual exam results could be disclosed but no comparision given to your position in class, no school uniform etc, etc.

[Jonathan M. Scott]

Mark Field is absolutely spot on in his article.

As someone from a working class family who would not have gone to university had it not been for attending the local Grammar School, I am appalled that Willetts has decided (as Roger Gale rightly points out) to come out with this socialist nonsense.

I consider it absolute treachery and Cameron should do the right thing - and sack Willetts from the front bench - and disassociate the Conservative Party from this disgraceful statement.

[Torygirl]

Well said Mark Field. A pity the front bench don't listen to some of their more sensible back benchers.

[Glyn]

Bravo Mark.

I was also thinking that the reason why the present grammar schools have so many pupils from "middle class" backgrounds is that they are located in "middle class" areas. The answer is not to abolish them, but to have new ones located nearer to where less-well-off children live, primarily, as Mark says, in the inner cities.

Thank goodness someone has come along and pointed out this very important (and obvious) and fact.

[Dave Bartlett]

"The answer is not to abolish them"

There is no policy to abolish existing grammar schools. Mr Cameron gave a short interview on The World at One today where he reiterated that point.

[michael mcgough]

Sound!

[H. Roberts]

I am afraid the Conservative Party will lose my vote over this, what a shameful thing to do. Grammar schools are the best way forward for the children of poor parents to make something of themselves. When my husband retired early and money for schoolfees ran out our children went to a grammar school and then on to university to round off their education, they would not have been able to do so if they had gone to the local secondary where knives have to be handed in with the overcoats and emphasis is on keeping safe rather than learning.

[Bruce Pollington]

I would just like to widen this debate with the following statement and questions.

All kids have special needs, that is the special need for their individual aptitudes to be recognised and developed to the best of their ability. We are individuals and if allowed to play to ones strengths, the whole game will reap the benefit. Achievement in one facet of education will build the confidence to maximise all areas.

In which school system does this really truly happen?

Which school system can genuinely claimed to achieve this?

It is not my intention to answer this question, but rather to hope we can ponder upon this for a moment.

[Dale Watering]

It is a mistake for state school fifth formers to move to City Technology Colleges instead of staying on for sixth form Public or Grammer Schools.
The City Colleges would tend to force students into Socialism,when mixing with rougher and left wing students.
If Karl Marx had gone from Grammer School to University and not to the London School of Economics he would not have changed from a nice quiet young man into a nasty noisy communist.

[David Holdway]

Mark Field MP for Shadow Education

It is nice to see that not all conservatives have lost their courage of conviction. If we lose our convictions, then we abandon our philosophy, then we become no better than New Labour.

[Matt Wright]

Re: the Mark Field article - but that is why the move to streaming is good and will benefit more people. It is building on the lessons of both systems and encouraging excellence. Also the world has changed we don't necessarily need either intellectuals or "people clever with their hands" (you know that euphemism used by people who supported 11-plus). We actually need both and the system is not providing it. What Willetts is aiming at is correct and the right way forward. The whole false debate about grammar schools is crazy and misses the point entirely. The only thing one might say is that the PR handling of this announcement was bad because it overshadowed a good approach,

Matt

[Brian Jenner]

Three cheers for Mark Field.

He's really grown in stature since falling out with the Cameroons. He should assemble around him a coterie of "alternative" modernisers, who actually have some integrity and experience of life, so they can move in when David Cameron loses the next election.

[ED]

To Dave Bartlett who says that 'Mr Field's biography doesn't reveal any experience, or interest, in education.' The interview (http://www.markfieldmp.com/about/interview.php)on his website does state that it was his grammar school education that inspired him to get involved in politics. Just because he doesn't have any formal parliamentary experience in the area, it does not exclude him from having an opinion about the very issue which inspired him to become a Tory.

[Pat]

Another tick in the box headed - Why not to vote in the Tories

Afraid this box has well over taken the reason to vote for them.

Within weeks we will see Labour going up in the polls, the increase for the Tories since Cameron took over was a slap for Blair, not an endorsement for Cameron I'm afraid.
As I vote in Poll's on a regular basis I find myself having to look honestly at what now comes out of the mouths and minds of those that are making these statements and I can as a true blue Tory voter say that my vote may well be wasted next time and I never thought I would even think like that let alone carry it out.

Well argued Mark Field

[Michael Nye]

I am incensed at Willet’s statement of yesterday. Has the opposition front bench, suddenly woken up to the fact that they have lost their BACKBONE or did it happen surreptitiously, so that they have been totally unaware of the fact. I do, now expect Willet to be sacked for publicly supporting a policy that Blair has been advocating for nearly 8 years now. It is rather encouraging to see that at least one backbencher, Mark Field, has not forsaken his roots and is prepared to stand up and be counted. It’s a shame so many on the front bench are prepared to “sell their souls” for the accolade of 10 minutes notoriety. I am now one very disillusioned, life long, Tory supporter, who is seriously questioning where has my Party gone?

[Michael McGowan]

David Cameron was Shadow Secretary of State for Education briefly. Does that mean that he is particularly knowledgeable about education? Presumably you therefore think that Patricia Hewitt is an expert on healthcare because she is Secretary of State in charge of the NHS?

[Richard Calhoun]

I disagree with Mark Field's assessment of David Willet's policy on grammar schools.
I believe the Cameron team are thinking outside the box and have the courage to state their beliefs, however unpalatable, and my reason's are as follows;

1/ They are not proposing abolishing grammar schools and there is no reason that they will not continue to flourish
2/ The comprehensives need a huge input of investment and energy to improve the standards dramatically and this is the quickest and best way we are going to improve educational standards for the majority of children.
3/ It is refreshing to hear from an opposition who are not promising to dismantle everything their opponents have put in place, but to change them with better policies and give the individual schools the opportunity to take responsibility for achieving this.

When Labour abolished the grammar schools we all criticised them for not improving the modern secondary's, they were wrong and we would be wrong to ignore comprehensives, its where most of the talent is after all, and we must not be diverted from putting huge effort and investment into making them world class

[Richard Carey]

Richard Calhoun: 3/ It is refreshing to hear from an opposition who are not promising to dismantle everything their opponents have put in place...

I completely agree with that. One of Blair's policy failings was in dismantling pre-existing Conservative reforms on a dogmatic basis, and then re-introducing some (in many cases overly-bureaucratic) version of them later in the cases where they were in the right direction.

As I wrote during yesterday's discussions here, schools (and more precisely the children within them) are too important to be managed or reorganised in an ad-hoc manner on the basis of ideological dogma (that's right-wing as much as left-wing, by the way). I think that the measured and evidence-based way in which Willetts is proposing to induce his reforms is very encouraging in this regard.

[John Bell]

As a teacher for twenty years with experience in Secondary, FE and work-based training, I found David Willetts' speech on education and the discussions following it, profoundly depressing.

Not because I believe a grammar school in every city will solve our many educational problems – but they would solve some – not that I want returns to the 11-plus – there are better means of selection – but because we have again returned to the sterile argument between a failed 11-Plus system that states there are only two kinds of children: those who would benefit from a formal academic education and the rest – I was one of the rest - and a failed comprehensive system that insists there is only one kind of child and pushes them all into ‘bog-standard’ secondary modern schools, re-named comprehensives.

Why should we have to choose either failed system?

The truth is there are many kinds of children with a wide variety of skills, abilities, ambitions and dreams. Are aim should be to provide a greater variety of schools that will allow all of them to fulfil their full potential.

To begin with, it is crucial to ensure that pupils leave primary school with the literacy, numeracy and social skills appropriate for their age, even if it means holding them back for an extra year; otherwise any secondary provision will fail. Then, given the increasing and, I think justified, criticisms of the standard of GCSEs and Key Stage 3, GCSEs could then be covered in Years 7, 8 & 9 and taken at age fourteen; ensuring that everybody has a good, wide-ranging, general education.

Thereafter, once this broad, general education has been completed, the answer is a far greater diversity of choice. Not just between the academic and vocational; that's far too narrow. All young people have different aptitudes, skills and interests: Art, Music, Language, Business, Sport, Science, and, yes, Academic and Vocational.

These need to be accommodated in real specialist establishments (unlike some of the present specialist colleges that are simply Comprehensives with add-ons) with selection by aptitude and achievement over time, and even movement between each other and the work place in the form of commercial placements and apprentiships. City Academies, given real independence, could develop into these.

Freeing schools is a necessary but not sufficient step. Standards will only be driven up if parents are empowered to vote with their feet. We must give all parents the same power and financial means to choose the best school for their children that rich politicians now enjoy

Schools will then be compelled to respond to their demands for higher standards, particularly if new providers are allowed to enter the market. We must free our schools from political control, targets and successive initiatives. Make all state schools independent trusts, competing with private schools, charging no more than the current cost of state education.

A child’s life chances should not depend on their parents’ income, a post-code, any other kind of lottery or political dogma or fashion.
John Bell
Deputy Chairman, Clwyd South Conservative ASS
Conservative Welsh Assembly Candidate for Clwyd South 2007
Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Delyn 2005