Cameron wants 'grammar streams' in every school

David Cameron has written for the Mail on Sunday about grammar schools.  The full article is on conservatives.com but here are a few key extracts and ConservativeHome responses:

"In eighteen years of Conservative Government, neither Margaret Thatcher nor John Major created grammar schools. That's why Conservative MPs and candidates in areas without grammar schools do not campaign for them to be brought back."

> True, Mr Cameron but John Major's 1997 manifesto promised a grammar school for every town. By then the Tory leadership had understood we needed a return to excellence in our schools.  Michael Howard, a long-time member of the 1979 to 1997 governments and with successful grammars in his county of Kent, certainly still supports these schools and we are sorry that your office chose to silence him.

"Far from being some winning slogan, a pledge to build more grammar schools would be an electoral albatross."

> Really?  A YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph found that 49% of voters supported a larger number of grammar schools.  70% of Tories are in support.

"This is a key test for our Party. Does it want to be a serious force for government and change, or does it want to be a right-wing debating society muttering about what might have been?"

> This is unworthy of you, Mr Cameron.  On Thursday we published your list of other education policies and welcomed them.  Of course it's right that a one nation Conservative government will enact reforms that benefit the many, not the few but that does not mean the party has to rule out new grammar schools.  There is something very Henry Ford about your Mail on Sunday article trumpeting the Tory policy that says "any individual, company, charity, church, community group, teacher or parent co-operative who wants to set up and run a school - providing they meet certain minimal standards - will be able to" whilst saying that that school can be any school but not a grammar school.

"We need to create more good school places rather than argue abut how to divide up the ones we have. The fact is, we don't have enough and we need more. How do we do it? Not by dividing existing schools up into a thousand grammar schools and two thousand secondary moderns."

> This is a straw man argument.  Who exactly is arguing in favour of the centralised state deciding that 1,000 schools should become grammars?  Mainstream Conservatives are simply saying that a few more should we welcomed if that is what local parents want.

"Today, because of the way that league tables and inspections work, there is far too much teaching to the test and teaching to get children from D to C instead of stretching the brightest to get A and A star. That's why we will reform the curriculum, exams and testing, and that's why we want to see aggressive setting by ability - in effect, a 'grammar stream' in every subject, in every school."

> Good stuff.  We can end on a point of agreement.

Postscript: The BBC often fails to ask 'right-wing questions' of Conservative politicians - defaulting instead to attacking from the left - but Andrew Marr was excellent on Sunday AM this morning.  Interviewing David Willetts he championed the anger of the Conservative grassroots and noted that the only support for the new Tory position was coming from left-wing commentators.  David Willetts did finish his interview on a high note by revealing that he opposed David Maclean's attempt to exempt MPs from key Freedom of Information requirements. Mr Maclean got a nasty comeuppance on page one of the Mail on Sunday: One wife, two mistresses... and a quad bike on Commons expenses.

Comments

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

F***! Chad's back - he's YHN @ 13:52

[Dave Wilson]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6673827.stm

[Giffin]

A couple of years ago, research of high ability children (top 5%) showed they need to be in groups of around 20 in order to achieve their potential. It also showed that these groups pulled up standards for all pupils in the schools. Below that, you can't achieve a "grammar stream". Statistically, you need 400 pupils per year to achieve 20 in the top 5%.

However, other research shows that intelligence is a combination of genetics and environment. Before 11, high-ability children in a poor environment will have lower performance than lesser ability children in a good environment.

So high ability kids are not evenly distributed. Some comprehensive schools, like those in Winchester, can have 30 high ability children in a 210 pupil roll, and achieve great results (over 30% at A or A*). An 1100-pupil school is pretty manageable so discipline can be enforced.

Inner City comprehensives might need 2-2,500 children to get the critical mass of 20 high ability kids to form a 'grammar set', but there are management problems when schools get that big, and poor discipline not only undermines performance but deters parents of bright kids from sending them there.

Then there's the problem of rural schools. Would it be better to create large comprehensives and bus every pupil there, or have central grammar schools but local secondary moderns, to reduce the cost and environmental impact of mass transportation?

It's not an easy decision. The question is whether we should allow local communities the freedom to debate and decide, or continue with central prescription?

My view is that we should focus on fixing the supply-side problems of teaching and school management skills, abolish the LEA's and set up a local oversight structure for schools that frees them to choose the format that suits their community.

[Andrew Mays]

Chris and Buckers;

The problem wasn't that we haven't pledged new grammar schools. I wouldn't have expected that at all. The problem is, after talking about making sound improvements to academies they decided to tell us that grammars don't work and are unfair as the entrench advantage.
They made a direct attack on grammars and Willetts even said "We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright poor kids."

That's the problem! Hands up who trusts a word that comes out of Camerons mouth?

[YHN]

That's the problem with paternalists like Cameron, they seek to coerce rather than give people the freedom to choose.

Our kids do not belong to the state. We should be able to choose the structures we believe are best to educate them.

Here's an education policy for you:
"Every child will be given a voucher and local communities will be able to choose whatever structure they decide is best for them which may include selection by ability".

We really shouldn't be having this discussion at all. We should be giving the money to kids and letting their parents decide without any governmental interference.

It is time for politicians to butt out of education.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"...there have been a gang of the usual right-wing turkey-basters who immediately used it to slate not jut the policy as "absurd" and "ridiculous" but also to attack their own Party leadership and it should come as no surprise to people like that if they get slapped down instead of listened to..." This is, well, crap.

I consider myself to be a liberal Conservative. In fact, I was a liberal Conservative before I even knew of David Cameron's existence. I have repeatedly stood up for the changes that David Cameron has introduced that have taken us back to the centre ground of British politics. And I've lost count of the number of times that I've been attacked on this site for doing so.

I am still a huge fan of David's - make no mistake about it. But, on this issue, he's wrong.

As a Tottenham resident and campaigner, I see bright kids, mainly black, on a daily basis who are let down by the comprehensive system.

By the very name, comprehensives do not distinguish between bright and not-so-bright children - everyone is treated and taught the same. Expectations are low and discipline almost non-existence. Locally, if a child makes it to Oxford or Cambridge, it’s the headline of the front page in the local rag. That’s how rare it is.

The Tottenham Grammar School provided a 'leg up' to bright children, including Lord Ralph Harris. Had it not been for the fact that he attended a grammar school, we would not have been paying tribute to his life and work as we did a few months ago.

The idea that ALL schools should be, in terms of standards and results, like the grammars is a myth that was dispelled a couple of years after the comp was first introduced. If the leadership *really* believes that, then they are living in Utopia.

Not only should we support existing grammar schools, we should pledge ourselves to expand them and build new ones - as John Major rightly wanted to do in 1997. We should also consider introducing school vouchers and definitely re-introduce the assisted places scheme.

On this issue the bright Tottenham kids who are condemned to failing comprehensives are my priority, not appeasing Cameron or CCHQ.

[Graeme Archer]

So you think we should be the party of a national 11 plus, or we are nothing, Justin? What is your proportion to be permitted entry to the grammar school system in the first term of a Tory government? i.e. what proportion of the IQ distribution as measured on an 11plus rating scale is deserving of the leg up?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I would support the 11+ in a modern setting, Graeme.

[Richard Carey]

This is, well, crap.

Thankyou for that quality point, Justin - please put it back in the box it came in.

[Matt Wright]

I watched the Willetts interview by Andrew Marr and was impressed by him. It stated what he believed in and the evidence that led to that conclusion. I bleive his veiws were far more likely to be in tune with the vast majority of the public than some of the posts on this site. As the Editor has said above, many of the ideas set out by Willetts are good although perhaops fvor some reason the hadling of the news went wrong. I strongly agree that we need to get the suply side sorted before we can contemplate vouchers otherwise we will have a very gappy provision. I see a good policy and a logical sequence as to how we build on what has been done before and make it much better. I think the debate has been hysterical and quite potty,

Matt

[Annabel Herriott]

I have just picked up the transcript of Cameron's speech from my in box, and read it slowly. He makes absolute sense. The 11 plus WAS deeply unpopular with parents. Mine whipped me out of the system before I got anywhere near taking it! They knew I would fail it, as I have an uneven set of abilties. "Aggressive setting by ability" Yes David, that is the way to go.
Some of our party dont seem to be able to make the stretch of the imagination to encompass any other way of delivering a "grammar school" type of education for the academic child, apart from that child being housed in a separate "grammar" school.
This may be down to the fossilisation of the mind that affects older people. "in my day......" My dearest partner, retired head, now aged 81, is a prime case of the condition!! They find it really impossible to change their mindset, so David, you know you are right, you will just have to push it through regardless. The penny will drop with them eventually.

[Scotty]

"Scotty, for about the fifth time why are a bunch of huge City Academies going to provide a 'vegetarian option of (better schools for the majority)?
First of all as I pointed out in an earlier post I don't have a city academy in my area nor am I likely too. I did not go to a grammar and again they were never in existence in my area when I went through the education system. Having read David Willets speech and David Cameron's response in the Mail today I am optimistic that they have grasped what is wrong and what needs to done to improve education for everyone not just the brightest few in some area's.
Just looking at the threads on this site over the last few days has shown just how divisive this issue is among conservatives and this will be replicated on a bigger scale outside the party faithful.
The fact that it is so divisive even now goes a along way to explaining why most grammar schools went under both Conservative and Labour governments, it also explains why neither Thatcher or Major tried to bring them back. I am sorry but I don't think that Major promising to bring them back in his manifesto in 97' was anything other than a desperate attempt to hang on to a few middle class voters when he knew he had lost and lost big.
I usually agree with many of your comments on various issues on this site but again this divisive issue is splitting people who are normally pro David Cameron, this is because just about everyone of us has a very dug in view about this which was there before the present leadership and will in all probability be there when they are gone.
I have children going through the secondary education system just now one of whom has special needs, my other children have been streamed into the top group classes and will do well in this present but very poor education system.My major concerns about the state of the education system will not be fixed by providing more grammar schools in some area's, but improving the curriculum , discipline, and exams they take might. The leadership also seem committed to helping provide special provision for the most needy in my immediate family which to me is far more important because that is the area where we really are failing children, their parents and everyone else in the same system including teachers on a shocking scale.

"Re your post Scotty @14.58 are you happy with the points made by DC that this is a 'pointless debate' etc."
Hopefully answered this point in above comments.
I could not give a toss where David Cameron, David Willets, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or any other cabinet or shadow cabinet minster sends their kids to school, what I care about is what they are going to do in government to make the education system better for my kids in my area.

Annabel, as usual you are a breath of fresh air to the debate. My other half(also a tory member) and I have had a few heated discussion on this issue over the last few days. I put it down to the fact that I went through the Scottish state system without a grammar school, they on the other hand went to a highly sought after grammar school in Buckinghamshire!!!

[TomTom]

Locally, if a child makes it to Oxford or Cambridge,

Forget O & C...let's have them getting into Imperial College, London....if they can. That is the powerhouse in Europe for Physics and Science subjects.

The fact is there are 486 million people entitled to work in Britain in the EU. There are 400.000 "EU" trained engineers living in the USA because opportunities in Europe are so dire.

We are not even catering for the top end of the education spectrum properly - medicrity is the watchword

[malcolm]

I think we'll leave this there Scotty. I assume privately you have no liking for City Academies either, despite my constant invitations to do so you have made absolutely no attempt to try to explain their benefits.
I also do not mind where Tory MPs educate their children and have never criticised Willetts for his choice. But DCs and Willetts failure to try and sell this policy to the Party or defend it from the criticism afterward is the most disappointing aspect of the whole affair.
I hope that lessons have been learned and that we have no repeat of these events.

[IRJMilne]

Unusually, I agree with Mr Hinchcliffe, who has certainly been a Cameron loyalist.

Having said this, Mr Cameron has surely got the message by now. We don't need to promise grammar schools in our first term, city academies are grant maintained schools reheated by Mr Blair, I think the pro-grammar lot are doing more harm than good now.