1922 meeting goes badly for David Willetts

I've just received a couple of reports from tonight's 1922 meeting of Conservative MPs.  One contact described it as "the stormiest meeting" he could remember.  Ed Vaizey and Ian Taylor defended David Willetts but a dozen other MPs - led by Salisbury's Robert Key and joined, surprisingly, by Hugh Robertson - condemned today's grammar schools announcement.  A number of MPs said that they were at breaking point in their ability to swallow any further modernising measures.  I'll blog later if I learn any more.

Comments

[KH]

And do you think David Willetts cares what ConHome says? a bunch of Labour and Old Tories trying to get an Old Agenda out without success!!! as the saying goes "lok at my face do I care"

[eugene]

There are so few grammer schools left, it is hardly worth the argument.

As a teacher in a grammar school area (but not at a grammar school), I see no merit either way.

What is needed in England and Wales are separate school provision for those with special needs (the Tories cut back on them and Labour destroyed them)- not silly argument about grammar schools.

The Inclusion Policy has robbed the needy of proper attention and destroyed the education of millions that cannot learn in an atmosphere where some just cannot cope.

No-one gets it...and that is another reason why people are giving up on politicians.

[Traditional Tory]

1922 meeting goes badly for David Willetts

Excellent!!!!

[Robert Walker]

There are so few grammer (sp.) schools left, it is hardly worth the argument.

This misses the point. Gratuitously attacking a well documented source of social mobility--recognised by non-Conservatives as well as Conservatives (see Pollard and Adonis), is just a worthless sop to left-of-centre voters who are so far removed from the Tories it probably won't change their voting habits one bit.

Substance will win a general election, about that at least Mr. Blair is correct.

[Tanuki]

"1922 meeting goes badly for David Willetts"

Good. Perhaps this little fright will get us back to advocating a Swedish-style voucher scheme for education?

My approach would be for government to give all parents a fixed-value education-voucher for each child, and for schools to be allowed to set their own admission price-per-pupil. If a parent wanted to top-up the voucher-value with their own money in order to get their child into a more-expensive school [but one which they perceived to give better outcomes] fine by me!

[Simon]

Grammer Schools DO NOT help the poor! Stop using this argument.

I went to one!

They are full of middle class kids who go to them so there parents don't have to fork out on a private education.

There were no 'working class' children in my grammer school... period!

[Bill]

KH asks "And do you think David Willetts cares what ConHome says?" as if he is immune to criticism and his speech is some sort of massive success. It makes you wonder if his nick name is ironic.

[James cullis]

im sick of this "poor me" attitude taken by 80% of the WC, at the end of the day its work you put in - thrift a basic conservative vallue thats what this party it about long live grammer schools

[Richard]

"There were no 'working class' children in my grammer school... period!"

Are there many working class children where you live?

The grammar schools in Northern Ireland have a noticeable working class intake.

[Adam]

Tanuki, Willetts is in favour of school vouchers. He even says so, quite explicitly, in his speech. He goes further, saying that it is not enough to 'fix' the demand side, you need to 'fix' the supply side as well: he wants a lot more schools that are one-step removed from the LEAs (like the Academies, CTCs, and old grant-maintained schools).

Vouchers and parental choice, are of course, wholly contrary to the grammar school system. I wonder why people keep forgetting that?

Honestly, you'd think people hadn't bothered to read the speech...

[James cullis]

im sick of this "poor me" attitude taken by 50% of the WC, at the end of the day its work you put in - thrift a basic conservative vallue thats what this party it about long live grammer schools

[Michael Hewlett]

It has been mentioned in numerous posts that the honeymoon is over. This was to be expected to a certain extent when we finally put forward concrete policies after the period of making the 'Tory brand' acceptable (which we have done).

With this in mind, the focus and harsh words (in some of the postings) towards Willetts are unfair to someone who has been one of the intellectual driving forces within the party.

It has always seemed to me that the grammar/comprehensive debate holds excellence of education at the heart of the argument. This can be achieved through streaming.

This is certainly a clause 4 moment and I hope the party rally round the current leadership and we don't allow the new brand to be tainted by infighting and press briefings.

[Traditional Tory]

Willetts of course is appalling. More like two backsides than two brains.

Incidentally hardly anybody goes to his Con club in Havant these days. A year or two ago it was hi-jacked by a bunch of transvestites.

Before Cameron and his gay-friendly Mafia start to get excited about that, the gender benders have now been kicked out, but there's no sign that the normal (is one allowed to say that these days?) membership is returning. I hear the club may even be put up for sale.

However, let's not forget that Willetts is only the front man/scapegoat for the disgraceful Bluelabour anti-Grammar School policy.

Let's put the blame right where it really lies - with Cameron.

[Prentiz]

I think Willett's speech today is mroe a part of project Cameron's rebranding efforts masquerading as a reasoned approach to educational reform. I've wittered about this in more detail elsewhere . It has certainly lit the blue touchpaper - but in part that may have been the intent of the media strategy that CCHQ adopted.

I note Eugene's points about special schools which are well made. It has been the Conservative party which has fought for special schools and against the inclusion agenda across the UK. In many places the same arguments raised for protecting grammar schools have been applied to protecting special schools. This is an issue where Cameron is genuinely passionate - as one might expect - Conservatives are definitely the best bet for decent special schools in the UK in future.

[CliveR]

Hardly surprising really, 'Dave' thinks he needs the conflict with his own party.

His wet agenda will simply force more traditional Tories to UKIP, but he does not care, he's thinking of the 5 / 15 ratio - he is willing to lose 5% of his membership to gain 15% floating voters.

[Traditional Tory]

Don't go to UKIP. Stand and fight!

If Cameron wants a fight he can have one.

Even if he wins - which he won't - it'll be a Pyrrhic victory for him and his Mafia.

It's time for People Power to confront the Cameron Mafia.

[William MacDougall]

The issue is not so much "Grammar Schools" as more generally permitting selection by ability, as we rightly recognise in most other walks of life is absolutely necessary. In 2001 we campaigned on a platform that any school in the country could select by ability as much as it - its governors - wanted. In 2005, when I stood as a candidate, we were more vague but still permitted the possibility of much more selection. Now we are saying no more at all. Now only UKIP believe in what we used to believe...

If the Conservative Party is as bad as Labour on education, and even more extreme on the environment and racial/gender positive discrimination, why should a conservative support it? Of course we need to appeal to the centre, but not at the price of abandoning all we believe in.

[kingbongo]

CH gets it's knickers in a twist over a perfectly sensible adjustment of exisintg policy? what's new.

UKIP trolls and bufton tuftons who know nothing about education or poor people suddenly develop a social conscience.

Grammar school aims can be achieved with proper setting and streaming. From 14 more vocational students could be given better access to more practical education than regular schools can provide - they get to achieve and don't get bored and disaffected. With the growth of lifelong learning opportunities nobody need ever be held back by lack of paper qualifications. The idea of grammar schools being the only way of achieving laudable objectives is so muddle headed as to be beyond parody.

[CDM]

To Traditional Tory: How exactly do non-heterosexuals threaten grammar schools?

[Stewart Geddes]

As usual the Leadership seem keen to seek out some issue to annoy the long term loyal supporters and activists so that they can say to the Left wing biased BBC that the Conservatives have changed. As if this was the only point that mattered. Well what may well happen is that we will see a further drift of long term loyal members away from the party thus reducing further our ability to run and win election campaigns in the future.

I've seen this decline. Look back, when Margaret Thatcher was deposed, we lost a load of members who never came back.

When IDS was deposed we lost a load of members who never came back.

When DC was elected and immediately promised to change everything the numbers continued to drift away (yes loads joined, but how many of them have renewed their memberships? How many have become activists? very few)

Now Willetts is having a go at the one system proven to improve social mobility and opportunity for the poor.

OK the problem with Grammars is that because the system has not been properly encouraged and expanded it has resulted in a concentration of so called middle class people in those schools that are left.

The other problem we have is that testing at age 11 only has resulted in the perception of an unfair system skewed towards the well off.

What we now need is expansion of the system so that EVERY school is selective in education. Every school should select (stream) for ability at every level and in every subject. This will enable the gifted to benefit from targeted education at their level. The non academic children will have lessons targeted to their ability levels. Crucially you have to target lessons to those in the middle as well.

Thus if pupils are in similar ability groups they can work together and be challenged at their level.

What is also required is the ability to move between ability groups. It's a known fact that different children mature at different times. Thus on the basis of annual appraisals there must be the ability for children to move up or down the streams.

If that means that there is keen competition and a desire to perform well that can only be a good thing and it opens the way for late developers to rise to their potential over time.

The issue however is that we have to overcome generations of left wing educational prejudice in the teaching profession to move our education system into a world class level that would be the envy of all.

So, David Willetts, lets not have any more nonsense attacking Grammar schools. Just get on with improving the system so that every school becomes a grammar school and every school also caters for the less academic.

[Richard Carey]

Traditional Tory: If Cameron wants a fight he can have one.

Hmm, new username, same old bunch of hot air. You and whose army?

I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't rise to these people, but sometimes a post is just so ludicrous I have to do it...

[Simon]

"Are there many working class children where you live?

The grammar schools in Northern Ireland have a noticeable working class intake."

Some woman on News 24 has just said that 2% of Working Class kids go to Grammers in Kent - that makes my point!

I agree in areas like Northern Ireland they work - in Kent - NO

[Andrew]

"To Traditional Tory: How exactly do non-heterosexuals threaten grammar schools?"

Many on here think that us homosexuals threaten everything. We highjaked the Labour Party, The Conservative Party, The Lib Dems, The BBC, BP, The Print Media, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Goldmans, Lloyd's of London, ITV, Channel 4 etc

Well, actually we are taking over a lot of things.

It seems your time is up 'Traditional Tory'.

[Neil Wilson]

"There were no 'working class' children in my grammer school... period!"

I went to one and there were loads.

"Some woman on News 24 has just said that 2% of Working Class kids go to Grammers in Kent - that makes my point!"

How many would go to grammars if there were none?

Exactly.

[DAVID VINTER]

My grandfather, son of a farm labourer[ his wife was the daughter of another] he was born into a tiny Lincolnshire village. He left school at the age of 10 in 1886. His family were so poor they had earth floors. Hewas the youngest of 6, without a book in the house. He and my grandmother raised 5 children between 1904 and 1924. He was still a labourer. 3 of his children went to the King Edward the sixth grammar school at Louth. As did I in 1947. Was I coached for the 11+ no way I only had 15 minutes notice!
If you had called my Grandfather George middle class, he would still be laughing. When I went in 1947, I well remeber a classmate, son of a war widow, his two sisters all made grammar school too,they lived in our new council estate. Some of your letters are rubbish.

[Bill]

As has been said elsewhere, this is not just about grammar schools. It is about Cameron's privileged Conservatives putting further distance between themselves and their party's aspirational working and middle class supporters who so upset the liberal chattering
metropolitan set by their support for the Tories in the 80s, yes 90s and yes unbelievably even today.

[TomTom]

"Are there many working class children where you live?

Well moving from a State primary school to a direct grant grammar school I didn't really obsess about class origins. Some friends had parents with businesses, some had parents who were dentists, some had parents who were lab technicians, some had parents who were unemployed, some on benefit.

But it wasn't really an issue when you have so much homework, so much class work, so much sport, and a lot of competition.....there is too much obsession with social origins in England and too little on performance

[Scotty]

"One contact described it as "the stormiest meeting" he could remember."
Over David Willets echoing the policy followed by the party in and out of office for 30years!

Yet last week ConHom was advocating waving goodbye to the Scottish Conservative party, you could not make this up!!!

[Luis]

It's not that surprising that Hugh Robertson joined the "bad boys". After all he represents Mid Kent which is one of the few areas of the country to still have a lot of grammar schools. Standing up for his constituents interests shouldn't be cause for surprise !

[Chris]

"As has been said elsewhere, this is not just about grammar schools. It is about Cameron's privileged Conservatives putting further distance between themselves and their party's aspirational working and middle class supporters who so upset the liberal chattering
metropolitan set by their support for the Tories in the 80s, yes 90s and yes unbelievably even today."
So not going to a grammar or private school means that a child doesn't have a hope in life? I guess being a product of a comprehensive school I may as well go and vote Labour now, because I obviously won't ever amount to anything!

The name on the front of the school and the type of school is often irrelevant. It's all to do with what you do with the opportunities afforded to you.

[malcolm]

Scotty, not true of course.Conservative policy has varied in the last thirty years.We have advocated a return to grammars in the 1997 election and half heartedly advocated a voucher system in 2005.
However I think the reason that David Willetts who as I understand it is a well liked and respected Shadow cabinet member had a hard time today is because his speech to the CBI was weak.
His reasons for abolishing any form of selection whatsoever were unconvincing but more importantly his advocating of a massively expanded form of city academies does not seem to convince many that it is a good idea. I've asked on a number of occasions today what is so special about city academies? As far as I'm aware they are simply a Blairite gimmick that have gained significant and probably unfair amounts of publically funded support yet have achieved only mixed results.
Neither you nor Oberon or Tory T or any of the others who have so stoutly defended Willetts all day have been able to give any reasons why this policy will be in any way better than what exists currently.
As you know I usually try to defend the leadership on this blog because I generally believe that they are taking the party in the right direction and furthermore believe that it is foolish to constantly seek to undermine whoever leads us as some on this blog do.
However if I and many others think a mistake has been made as I do on this occasion then surely it is our duty to ask David Willetts to think again. I think we can do this in a friendly and civilised manner 'though, many of the gratuitous insults that have been thrown around today benefit noone.

[Bill]

Chris

You must have read what I wrote as you have copy pasted it but you appear to have missed my point entirely.

BTW, I also went to a comprehensive and I agree with the sentiments in your last para.

[Tory T]

I certainly have given reasons as to why this policy will be better than the hideous mess currently in place. Go to the thread on Cameron in the classroom and you'll find the reasons articulated in post one.

[Ted]

As this was anounced by Cameron way back last year (and we had same arguments then) what the heck do our MPs think they are doing kicking up a fuss now?

The Grammar School debate was lost before 1970. As for the "facts" on social mobility look at the rebuttal from Willetts. As I said before the Butler Act that brought them in also brought in free secondary education and equal treatment for girls - it wasn't Grammars that bought more mobility it was extension of secondary education. Grammars were the way into University as you didn't do O & A levels at Sec Mods. So you separated the University entrants from the rest at age 11 - had Butler brought in free secondary schooling with Comprehensives and a single examination system the social mobility would have most probably been the same.

The system's moved on now - Grammars have become largely a middle class way of getting better funding and teachng for their kids. It's the schools that teach the children of the huge majority of the population that need to improve and Charter Schools etc are the way to do that.

[Nigel Syson]

unlike the rest of the education system Grammar schools select pupils on acdemic potential rather than parential income ( good comprehensives generate a house price premium).

Why is it we want to attack children with academic potential, why is that parents that support their children are penalised for it. Our leadership , who are essentially privately educated, are seeking to impose on our children schools that they do not appear to send their own children to. We should remove the state monopoly on the provision of education, give parents choice through vouchers( including public schools) and put a grammar school in every town to give opportunties to thise who are academically able. A grammar school in every town would help reduce the need to buy a house in the right catchment area. Once again our leadership, like the ERM disaster, are attacking our own people. We should be making state education better than the public schools not destorying the remaining islands of academic excellance. Northern Island shows how successfull Grammar schools. We should support these schools and extend the level of provision to England.

[Bill]

Well said Nigel. Its the do as I do not as I say Tory Party.

[Yet Another Anon]

This is certainly a clause 4 moment and I hope the party rally round the current leadership and we don't allow the new brand to be tainted by infighting and press briefings.
All this talk about brands, there are arguments between different forms of school but actually Labour and the Conservative Party have both been in favour of Grammar Schools at some points and both against. At the time of the 1944 Education Act it was mainstream thinking in the Labour Party to see Grammar Schools as being a great way to improve the lives of clever children from poor backgrounds. Margaret Thatcher as Education Secretary in the early 1970's closed more Grammar Schools than any other Education Secretary, worked happily with Labour councils indeed to force closures through and always denounced Grammar Schools as Socialist.

[malcolm]

Really Tory T? Where? You don't even mention City Academies in either of your first two posts but rather make the claim that discipline will be improved (really? why?),phonics will be taught and that traditionalists should find much to comfort them! As Willetts makes none of these claims in his speech a little wishful thinking on your part methinks.

[Mike]

I agree with chris all of you seem to think that you need to go to a grammar school to get a good education, thats just complete rubbish!!! I live in bexley where we have both grammar and comp schools and guess what, all the kids going to the grammar schools are middle class, just accept that fact!!! Maybe DC and DW are right but i wouldnt expect any one on here to realise that.....

[Mike]

I agree with chris all of you seem to think that you need to go to a grammar school to get a good education, thats just complete rubbish!!! I live in bexley where we have both grammar and comp schools and guess what, all the kids going to the grammar schools are middle class, just accept that fact!!! Maybe DC and DW are right but i wouldnt expect any one on here to realise that.....

[Tory T]

Malcolm, that you ask if discipline will be improved just says to me you did not read the post or what Cameron has been saying. DC talks about greater powers to expel the disruptive. We as a party alreay demanded the universal use of synthetic phonics and the Labour party bowed to it. Willets has said that no new comprehensive schools will be built under the Tories, that selection will happen by ability within schools in setting, and that all new schools would be CTCs or Academies or what have you. Plus DC confirms support for faith schools.

You are just not reading what the leadership is saying.

[ToMTom]

I may as well go and vote Labour now, because I obviously won't ever amount to anything!

Yes Chris you should...and push Labour to integrate public schools into the State sector as Academies. There should be no fee-paying schools buying privilege

[Tory T]

Malcolm from the Cameron in school post

"He spoke to teachers and pupils who talked of the impact that behavioural problems in a small number of children can have on the whole school. Two of the teachers he spoke to favoured a zero tolerance approach to poor behaviour and bad language. He dismisses the current system which means that schools are fined if they exclude pupils and says:

"Change in our society – big, long term, substantial cultural change - is needed. And we should start by making every school head the absolute captain of their ship, able to maintain discipline and exclude poorly behaving pupils without being second-guessed or penalised for doing it." "

And on traditional teaching methods, here's David Willets

"The best way of opening up opportunities for poorer children is to make it easier to create good schools in the state sector, to raise standards and enable all pupils to benefit from the tried and tested teaching methods that have increasingly become the preserve of grammar schools and the independent sector.

This means setting and streaming in all schools - so that pupils can have the benefit of being taught at the level of ability that suits them; it means greater use of whole-class teaching; and it means a firm discipline policy, so that a small number of pupils cannot disrupt the learning of the majority."

All of it right here on ConHome but posters are reading past it.

I just listened to DC on the news at ten calling for "zero tolerance" on bad behaviour and bad language in class.

[Scotty]

Malcolm, how many new grammar schools did we open in 18 years of government?
But in that period I went to the only state school in my area and saw teachers putting in the time and effort which saw one of my counterparts being courted by both Oxford and Cambridge(they chose Cambridge). At the same time someone with severe dyslexia got tuition and a specialist from Edinburgh came up regularly to help the teachers with advice and techniques which enabled that child to achieve their full academic potential.
Why do you need tokenism social mobility for the brightest and poorest 2% in among the middle classes when you should be striving to provide it for everyone what ever their ability.
"High ability kids from low income families will be beaten in tests by low ability high income kids."
Now which income group has the ability to pay for tuition to "rig" the results. It won't be the brightest just a more exclusive middle class education system which will save on the tuition fee's or the extra £100,100 to buy that house in the right area.
Now that really would be pulling up the ladder behind you but it is what has been happening unofficially for years already.

[malcolm]

Have you read Willetts speech Tory T? Discipline is NOT mentioned within it!I have asked numerous times today what is so special about Academies, their results are at best 'mixed'.They are, as I've mentioned before, simply a Blairite gimmick which in addition to the private money invested have attracted an unfair amount from the public sector.Please if you are going to defend our policy do not insult my intelligence but give me a few concrete reasons as to why the policy being propsed today by David Willetts is a good one. I and it seems many others within the party need to be convinced.

[DF]

I have been wondering where all those Conservative righ wing individuals have gone to! hey guess what I have found a few of them .... on this site. Please stay where you are... you seem to be creating less mischief cuddling up to good old Tim

[Dave Bartlett]

@eugene

"There are so few grammer schools left, it is hardly worth the argument. As a teacher in a grammar school area (but not at a grammar school), I see no merit either way. What is needed in England and Wales are separate school provision for those with special needs (the Tories cut back on them and Labour destroyed them)- not silly argument about grammar schools. The Inclusion Policy has robbed the needy of proper attention and destroyed the education of millions that cannot learn in an atmosphere where some just cannot cope. No-one gets it...and that is another reason why people are giving up on politicians."

You say "no one gets it", but Mr Cameron's post today on Webcameron, about his recent experiences as a teaching assistant, seems to chime with your own.

"Two teachers I have coffee with in a small staff room would favour a zero tolerance of poor language and behaviour – and I think they're right. In the run up to GCSEs you feel so clearly that these kids only get one chance – and for too many it's simply missed.

Of course there's more to say about teaching methods, the madness of closing special schools (including those for children with behavioural problems), the paramount importance of the basics and the dangers of new teaching fads (I am still to be convinced by the mania for “personalised learning”), and I will say more about these things tomorrow. But order, discipline and behaviour absolutely have to come first.

The current system makes it harder to enforce discipline. Like all schools, the one I'm at is fined for every pupil they exclude, so it's not surprising that they try and avoid excluding disruptive pupils even when they want to do just that. The result is that language and behaviour that simply would not have been tolerated in the past is put up with. What's more, the kids know it."

[malcolm]

We have opened no new grammar schools in the last 30 years Scotty and as we all know education in Britain has been a roaring success hasn't it?
With all due respect your personal circumstances are irrelevant to the debate as are mine.
The rich benefit currently by either moving into middle class areas with nice comprehensives or by sending their children to private schools. Grammars address that by giving children from poorer backgrounds an opportunity.
Grammar schools are only tokenistic because governments of the past have made them so by abolishing so many so that the're only 160 left.
Same question to you as Tory T. How will City Academies 'benefit everyone'?

[Dave Bartlett]

@malcolm

"Have you read Willetts speech Tory T? Discipline is NOT mentioned within it!"

Reading Mr Willetts' speech I find: " I believe that whole class teaching, setting and streaming, and a robust discipline policy are very effective ways to improve standards."

"I have asked numerous times today what is so special about Academies, their results are at best 'mixed'."

In Mr Willetts' speech we find: "I missed out one type of school with a long track record of success. These schools have excellent results and take a high percentage of children from poor backgrounds. They are City Technology Colleges. There is still a gap between the social background of the children at the school and the area in which it is located. Nevertheless, these schools, because they are in some of our most deprived areas, offered a better chance of a child from a poor background getting a good education than any other model we have looked at so far. 14% of their students are on free school meals, more than double the rate in any other of our well established top performing schools. This is still behind the rate in these areas - an extraordinary 26% - but that shows they are very poor parts of the country. CTCs were of course introduced by the last Conservative Government and we can take pride in what they have achieved. Although Tony Blair has not created any more CTCs, he has introduced the Academies, a diluted version of these CTCs. They don't have quite as many freedoms as CTCs enjoy. In fact in the rush to create more and more Academies before Gordon Brown becomes leader, there is a danger that they are becoming less distinctive. But so far the evidence is that Academies are very popular with parents and doing better than the schools they have replaced."

[Matt Wright]

This really is a ridiculous argument about nothing. What is needed is better education for more people and the way to achieve that is to encourage and reward excellence in all educational establishments not a few. Also we need to give more people more chances to learn, not hark back to the past. There are lessons to be learned from good schools in all sectors and streaming done sensibly in schools would help people to learn at the right pace. I do think however that when pupils are doing better than expected they should have a chance to shift streams. We all develop in different ways and at different speeds (that is why 11 plus was wrong). The existing grammar schools have also moved on and are very good and as I understand it they will and should be helped to continue to excel. I have no problem with the briefing notes I have seen from the party today.

Matt

[Scotty]

"With all due respect your personal circumstances are irrelevant to the debate as are mine."
Malcolm, take two state schools in neighbouring constituencies one is rural and one is in an urban deprived area. Both have a school role running at about 1/2 the average of the schools in the two constituencies, the urban one is only managing to attract half its capacity where as the rural one is running at full or above.
Neither select by ability and yet the rural one sits at near the top of the league tables behind the private urban schools where as the other languishes at the bottom of the tables.
Sadly parents and children feel they have failed it they can only get into that urban school where as the other is the only school available within a considerable distance.
Ironically the rural school put forward a small group for a UK wide competition and they won it!
Now I don't think it is fair that a couple of tests at age 11 should decide whether some children from a poorer background should go to a bog standard comp that no one else wants to put their kids too, far better that everyone should have a better quality of school nearest where they live regardless of ability or wealth which will achieve the best outcome for all what ever their ability.
Personally I don't think any urban school should be allowed to take more than 700-800 pupils max and with a good more plentiful selection of schools which has setting and streaming, better discipline and a decent ratio of motivated teachers with a curriculum which is flexible enough to incorporate both academic or vocational ability. I don't need another accountant in my area but I could certainly use more plumbers!
A good state school which provided an excellent education for all regardless of ability or social background existed back in the 80's under a tory government, so why can't applying the same principles and ethos now produce the same result?

[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.

[Traditional Tory]

Thrilling to read the posts from the enormous number of Tory patriots (on several threads) who are prepaerd to stand up and be counted on this issue.

Excitimg, too, to see that the scales are falling from the eyes of not a few who were initially taken in by the Cameron confidence trick.

Meanwhile the arch-Cameroons rave impotently from their bunkers.

It's time to isolate and neutralise these malignants.

[Roger Parkes]

As Conservatives we should be seeking maximum choice in all things including education. We should advocate all types of schools in all areas and cities. They should compete for pupils and offer a variety of educational opportunities. That way we could meet all the needs of our children. "Each according to his ability, each according to hie need." What a silly mistake to open this can of worms at this time.

[Roger Parkes]

As Conservatives we should be seeking maximum choice in all things including education. We should advocate all types of schools in all areas and cities. They should compete for pupils and offer a variety of educational opportunities. That way we could meet all the needs of our children. "Each according to his ability, each according to his need." What a silly mistake to open this can of worms at this time.

[Matt Wright]

The idea that introducing streaming and more freedom for schools is not Conservative is bonkers. It would have fitted well into a Thatcher Govt for Christs sake!! This isn't about grammar schools per se its about improving schooling for more people by learning from grammar schools and other methods as well. Some seem to want to use misreporting just to attack the party. No suprises there then, its always the same culprits,

Matt

[TomTom]

The idea that introducing streaming and more freedom for schools is not Conservative is bonkers.

So you'll have two different sets of teachers in each school...one highly-qualified set of subject-qualified graduate and post-graduate degree teachers for the A-Stream and a completely different set of teachers for the B and C streams.

And this will be the same in each and every Academy. The wages bill will explode.

Meanwhile in the NHS we are concentrating resources in major hospitals with highly-specialised staff because we don't have enough highly-trained surgeons and consultants to go round.

Go figure !

[Bradford]

What is needed is better education for more people and the way to achieve that is to encourage and reward excellence in all educational establishments not a few.

Sounds like Tony Blair 1996....now come to Bradford where Serco took over the schools as Government Agent......and let Kris Hopkins PPC Keighley and Cnserative Council Leader tell you why these schools will be as good as St Paul's and Eton......

It is a pledge as a Conservative PPC he should be able to make

[Old Hack]

Please let's start looking at where every frontbencher sends or sent his or her kids to school. Start with Dave Willets.

[Giffin]

I went to a Grammer School, my son goes to a Special Needs school, my daughter to a large (2,500 pupil) Comprehensive.

We chose the Special Needs school because the LEA destroyed my son's education and nearly cost him his life, and the Comprehensive because it offers individual setting for each subject, and is large enough that she can be with other top-ability kids in each class.

The debate about format is sterile; it should be about performance and giving schools the flexibility to deliver the best results for their community - rural, suburban or urban.

Because of the local monopoly provision of secondary schools, market forces don't always work. Effective choice would require driving or bussing kids all over the place., and that would undermine the sense of community that we need to implement our social policies.

It is better Conservative policy to give each Community direct control of its Foundation Schools than to give vouchers that can only be used in poor-performing schools.

I fully support the creation of Foundation Schools so long as it is accompanied by the destruction of the LEAs, populated by failed teachers and petty bureaucrats whose crazed Socialism has destroyed so many generations of children. Creating better links with local primaries would also be good; a lot of the first year of secondary school gets wasted due to poor transitioning.

However, what I find depressing about this is the failure of this leadership to engage its own party in debating and setting policy. If it can't do this with its supporters, how is it going to engage with the electorate whose votes it needs to gain power, or with the Councils and Civil Servants whose support it will need to implement policy?

It's time to rethink our policy creation and dissemination because this has made us look foolish and damaged our ability to win the next election.

"4/10 - Needs to do better"

[Russell Long]

Willett's claim about the number of poorer children getting into grammars being 'shockingly low' is specious, as is Simon's claim (above) about only 2% of working class children getting to grammar schools in Kent.

It is the tail wagging the dog. The primary reason for this, Willetts should (with his apparently vast intellect) know, is that large numbers of middle-class parents have moved to grammar catchment areas over the last decade or three. The area where I live in Kent, with 6 grammar schools in a radius of a few miles, is crammed with pushy middle-class parents wanting the best for their children. Poor children don't get a look-in because the demographics change. Were grammars to be reintroduced across the country, access for the brightest poor would spiral.

The idea that grammars strip the best and the brightest and leave the dregs for the comprehensives is also utterly wrong. I ran the IT systems at a local comprehensive for 18 months. Pupils there wore a uniform, worked hard, were (mostly) polite and the school got superb results - even though the grammars nearby supposedly creamed off the brightest pupils. This was the case for virtually every school in the area.

[grammar school boy]

I went to a grammar school and also to a "very good" comprehensive school. There is a world of difference between the two, having seen it I support grammar schools all the way.

My parents both went to grammar schools, they came from low social and work backgrounds and it changed their lives completely. Grammar schools do provide social mobility, we need more of them - hundreds and hundreds more.

[Simon Chapman]

David Willetts has always had a very engaging enthusiasm about politics and ideas. This has been one of his strengths. None of this was evident yesterday in the TV appearances that I saw yesterday. In his speech and on Newsnight (well done BTW, Tim) he was hesitant and defensive, and his body language radiated lack of confidence & self-belief, as if he was still trying to convince himself. Not unlike when he proposed David Davis for the leadership, when his mind was evidently changed in favour of Cameron.

If he genuinely believes that his proposals are the best way forward, I would have expected to see a much more empassioned performance.

There is too often a lack of passion at the top of the party at the moment. Passion and intellectual conviction go hand in hand, and help persuade people that, even if they are uncertain about your policies, you are in politics for the right reasons. If we are genuinely passionate about public services, we need people who can communicate that.

[malcolm]

Everone wants a good school for everyone Scotty. How David Willetts plan to replace Comprehensives with City Academies achieve this? I don't quite understand why you keep avoiding the central question.
At the moment under Labour many schools are allowed to select their pupils using various criteria (except aptitude). If I understand him correctly all selection will be banned. Is this a good thing? I think not.

[Traditional Tory]

It is the tail wagging the dog.

Too true.

It's time for we the people to reclaim our party from the Bluelabour Mafia and we need to discuss how we're going to do it.

The Grammar School announcement, obviously approved by Cameron, has been a total disaster for our party as Labour steams ahead with a stunning show of unity.

Willetts must go!!!!

[Sally Roberts]

Nice to see so many comments on a thread that isn't about Europe for a change!!!
I have to say I'm not happy about this policy shift - and I feel sad at opposing David Willetts here as he is an old friend (and was my Ward Chairman at one time!)
We as a Party have always supported selective education and I see no reason to withdraw that support now. Labour is the party of "dumbing down" and homogenising everyone into their "little boxes" - we believe in equality of opportunity and that the individual should have the chance to rise as high as they are able in life. If we think that suddenly supporting a "one size fits all" model in education is going to gain us votes then I think we may be sadly mistaken.

[Bill]

The Tory line on education (and quite a lot else to be frank) reminds me of Marie Antoinette telling the peasants to eat cake.

[Frank McGarry]

Under David Cameron the Party is no longer democratic and no longer recognisably Conservative either. As a Grammar school educated democrat I deplore these two developments. As far as education (or lack of it)is concerned it seems that at the next election we will have a choice of three socialist parties. Education has been sacrificed on the altar of egalitarianism.

[Bradford]

It is better Conservative policy to give each Community direct control of its Foundation Schools than to give vouchers that can only be used in poor-performing schools.

This is exactly what Muslim groups in Bradford have been asking for.....so the Conservatives will fund their Muslim Boys Academy School after all !

[Jake]

"A number of MPs said that they were at breaking point in their ability to swallow any further modernising measures. "

er - shouldn't there be inverted commas around the MODERNISING

or are we actually sinking to the level of the use of the word modernising by the Lanour party ?

ie frequent , expensive , often pointless and destructive , reineventing of wheels always with several ulterior motives .

[TomTom]

ALL Academies are PFI Schools which means their rental costs are going to be a fixed cost and staff salaries a variable cost.

Labour tried to replace teachers with classroom assistants to save money.

Just where are the Conservatives going to get the money for these policies....top-up-fees in schools ?

[Janice Small]

I live in Kent, support Kent grammar schools, my children attend grammar schools and yes, there are working class kids attending these schools.

A recent ICM poll of parents said that 70% wanted to retain them. Kent has some of the most deprived areas in the south east and as the aspirational party we have to keep them and the party has to be more robust in its support for them. The problem is that the other schools need to instil the ethos of a grammar school and setting and streaming needs to be compulsory, together with the 11+ being compulosory which will see more working class kids coming through. I visit secondary and primary schools in deprived areas in a professional capacity and I see many working class kids who are bright enough to get into grammar school but their primary schools are too full of SENCOs and problem kids that they are being left behind. However, there are other primary schools with the same intake who encourage their children to pass the 11+ and get high results. It is the primary system that needs overhauling, not the grammar system.

The myth that the system 'rejects' kids at 11 is wrong as they have other opportunities for entry at 13+ and 16+.

I speak as a former grammar school child whose education was dumped at the age of 13 due to the abandonment of the grammar school system in south east London. My old school failed me and has since failed thousands of others as it has been in special measures for a couple of years.

Those who are critical need to visit the grammars in Dover, Thanet and Gravesham - come and meet real working class kids receiving a first class education. In fact there is one school in Thanet whose entire 6th form is comprised of children who will be going to university but whose parents didn't.

Kent Labour have nothing to say on this matter as most of their kids attend grammar schools and one is on the board of governors of one.

I am afraid Messrs Cameron and Willetts are wrong on this one and will have a fight on their hands if they do not put out a more robust statement backing Kent grammar schools.

Who remembers Thatcher's cabinet of grammar school pupils? Baker, Patten, Tebbitt, Parkinson, Thatcher and more .....

Remember, in Kent we have 7 target seats to win.

[Derek Buxton]

And at the next conservative party annual meeting we will sing "the international" while waving a red flag. Our once blue colour has faded to red. Still never mind, we've got the foremans job at last. And nu/nu lab was born.

[TomTom]

London has the highest proprtion of children educated privately and the highest proportion of State school primary pupils who do not speak English.

Many of those parents had hoped they could save the cost of fees and get selective education for their children paid for from the taxes they pay to fund schools.

Instead the Conservative Party says it finds Labour Policy ideal and Tony Blair has the right approach - no doubt Lord Adonis is meeting with Willetts already.

So those parents paying to get their children out of the disaster of State education are being told they can only have selection by ability if they annot afford to pay twice...once for State-funded dross and again from post-tax incomes for what they decide they really want for their children.

[Norman]

Conservative Party? What the blazes are you conserving if you're ditching grammar schools? Is it any wonder that some long-standing members have had enough? A friend of mine has just written to resign from the party & is now supporting the UKIP. How many more of us do you want to alienate? Think on it Messrs Willetts & Cameron

[Matt Wright]

Norman, Conservatism is not just about conserving things! If it was we would be driving around in horses and carts. We are best when we are innovative and forward-looking and we are worst when we think this is just about presreving things. We have got to govern for most people not a few and we have to improve the education of most people not a few. The proposals appear tpo me to be very good and take the best bits of various methods and combine them so that we have for example streaming and improvements for all schools,

Matt

[ToMTom]

We have got to govern for most people not a few

run for the many not the few

The Labour Party Manifesto for the 1997 " UK " General Election

Britain will be better with new Labour

But I believe Britain can and must be better: better schools, better hospitals, better ways of tackling crime, of building a modern welfare state, of equipping ourselves for a new world economy. I want a Britain that is one nation, with shared values and purpose

I want to renew faith in politics through a government that will govern in the interest of the many, the broad majority of people who work hard, play by the rules, pay their dues and feel let down by a political system that gives the breaks to the few, to an elite at the top increasingly out of touch with the rest of us. And I want, above all, to govern in a way that brings our country together, that unites our nation in facing the tough and dangerous challenges of the new economy and changed society in which we must live. I want a Britain which we all feel part of, in whose future we all have a stake, in which what I want for my own children I want for yours.

Our aim is no less than to set British political life on a new course for the future. People are cynical about politics and distrustful of political promises. That is hardly surprising.

In education, we reject both the idea of a return to the 11-plus and the monolithic comprehensive schools that take no account of children's differing abilities. Instead we favour all-in schooling which identifies the distinct abilities of individual pupils and organises them in classes to maximize their progress in individual subjects. In this way we modernise the comprehensive principle, learning from the experience of its 30 years of application.

Matt Wright IS New Labour

[Traditional Tory]

I don't think Cameron ever found his 'Clause 4' - nor will he.

On the other hand it seems that we - the Cameron-fatigued grassroots - just found ours.

People power can beat the Cameron Mafia. Let's go for it.

[Matt Wright]

Grow up TomTom,

Matt

[tired and emotional]

I think this wild criticism is overdone. Forget the grammars and selection for a moment, forget the fact that we’ve all (well, 70% of us), myself included, supported selection and grammar schools for years and concentrate on what Willets is saying about schooling in the UK.

He is saying that Conservative Party policy would focus on improving all schools by allowing them to compete on a level playing field, by reverting to tried and trusted educational methods and by independently reviewing educational innovations before testing them on pupils in partnership with teachers (who may soon strike over Gordon’s pay rises, it is worth remembering).

Does anyone seriously believe that these are not essential reforms if we are serious about turning British education around for everyone? Does anyone seriously think that making those changes won’t alter society for the better or improve the quality of the British workforce?

Willets is also saying that social selection, which is practised by as many schools as can get away with it, frustrates the ability of any school – or school system - to raise standards for the poor but able. Our argument that grammars are a panacea for the poor but able looks a tad dishonest in this light – even if grammars were to be created everywhere, they would be, as now, vastly oversubscribed and vastly socially selective.

Perhaps we ought to own up to the fact that we just want selection so we have a chance of getting our kids out of crap or non-excellent schools without bankrupting ourselves. I too would like this option, but we are talking about what should be the policy of the Conservative Party as it seeks election 10 years after Labour moved the political mountain, not what we as members, activists and above all parents want for ourselves.

Furthermore, Willets is also talking about per capita funding – to me that sounds like the money follows the child. That sounds like the ability to shop for schools that we all want and we all believe lies at the heart of a good system – but that, as he points out, would be largely meaningless if no or few new schools open. Stripping away the barriers to entry for new schools is the most fundamental reform of educational policy there can be. It’s a glittering prize that we would be insane to overlook. Without that reform selection would be meaningless for most anyway.

Given that selection within independent grant-maintained schools (streaming and setting) could accomplish most of what we as parents want (not in the current system, granted – but in a system where new schools were being founded by a range of groups with parent’s desires in mind, certainly) why are we talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

These are policies which are based on genuine academic research as well as practical success in other countries and which, furthermore, are based on the soundest of conservative principles - choice, competition and traditional teaching methods.

Most importantly they are being put forward as being in the best interests of the country as a whole. And, judged on that basis, given all the water under the bridge since Crosland, not to mention the political lie of the land, it is difficult to disagree with them with a clear conscience.

[ToMTom]

Grow up TomTom,

Matt

Posted by: Matt Wright | May 18, 2007 at 10:27

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck

[Matt Wright]

Good post by "tired & emotional".

TomTom - you pointed to a speech by Tony Blair that is full of trueisms and then tried to imply I was echoing it. I felt it was a parlour game really. Lets be honest almost anyones name could have been at the bottom of that speech and I could easily dig out various quotes from various politicians with similar statements. The big problem with Blair is that he doesn't deliver. I don't really care if you think I'm New Labour but I stand by the fact that we must aim to help the many not the few and I don't give a toss whether that sounds like Blair or not. Are you seriously suggesting the Conservatives sould campaign for the few? Certainly Lady Thatcher didn't, she wanted to help as many as possible do better for themselves,

Matt