Brady escapes with reprimand after second attack on grammar schools policy

At the beginning of grammarsgate Graham Brady MP, a former shadow schools minister and now shadow Europe spokesman, wrote an article for the New Statesman in which he explained why he still backed grammar schools.  Today's Times reported that Mr Brady has passed the newspaper data that purports to show "that GCSE results are significantly better in areas that have an element of selective education – with ethnic minority children benefiting most."  The Times:

"The figures show that in comprehensive areas with no selection, 42.6 per cent of GCSE pupils get 5 or more A* to C grades in subjects including English and maths. This rises to 46 per cent in partially selective areas and 49.8 per cent in wholly selective areas where all pupils take the 11 plus."

For two incidents of disloyalty to the party position Mr Brady might have expected the sack but it is thought that he has senior protectors within the shadow cabinet.  Mr Brady has nonetheless "been severely reprimanded by the Chief Whip and told to stick to his brief," according to a party spokeswoman who issued a statement to the Press Association.

3.15pm: The Manchester Evening News now has the story.

Comments

[James Maskell]

Good for him. I would suspect that the Shadow Cabinets position isnt wholly behind this new policy if Brady could get away with that. I guess if Brady had been sacked all hell would have broken loose and Cameron didnt want a martyr for the cause of selective education.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Given that the vast majority of our remaining grammar schools are in relatively well-off areas, a 7% differential is about as far from convincing evidence as you can get.

[Editor]

Apologies to those who think we've had enough of grammar school stories but this story is, I think, more interesting for the willingness of a frontbencher to speak out against the policy and the restrained response from the whips' office.

[Richard]

So he's been told off for daring to produce evidence that backs up his particular viewpoint? One can debate the validity of his evidence but surely attempting to shut him up for producing it just looks silly?

[TomTom]

"been severely reprimanded by the Chief Whip and told to stick to his brief,"

Poor Liam Fox

[N]

As somebody who is a little sceptical about the grammar schools element of our new policy, I do wish Conservative Home would stop going on about "grammarsgate". Anybody reading the national newspapers knows that the news agenda has moved on, but if one only read Conservative Home, one would be mistaken for thinking that it remained the biggest news issue. All this obsession does is play into the hands of our opponents - in other parties and the media. Isn't it time to give it a rest?

[Richard Carey]

I'm actually pleased to hear simply that Brady has been read the riot act, as opposed to being allowed to run riot.

We do need more discipline in sticking to our messages, especially in the run-up to a GE against Brown. Equally, a sacking might have given the opposition more chance to go with a "Tory splits" story, as well as being used to blunt "control-freak" attacks on Brown.

Probably a good balance between the two by the Chief in the circumstances - but my belief is that this is might be a one-time-only special offer for Brady. He has a substantial brief, let's see him make a good fist of selling the Party's policy there instead of freelancing.

[Gareth]

An excerpt from my site, felt the need to say the same here because I care about conservatism.

Grammar Schools-Cameron is right

What a fantastically interesting issue. My gut feeling, after a beer or two is I should do this extempore and see how it goes.

I am a grammar school boy. In fact I'm the classic example of the current debate's poor kid made good. I was born into a very poor family, probably out of wedlock although my mum refuses to concede that 45 years later. My father was an arse of the first water and, as he's now dead, I will not go into detail, suffice to say he left us when I was seven and I never missed him.

From a very young age, I harboured a desire, inspired by my grandfather, to join the Navy. My primary school years were up and down. I attended an infant school and two separate primaries. I was bright but un-preposessingly shy due to my background. I passed my 11 plus with ease and went to Weymouth Grammar. But, but.... I passed partly because I was an august baby and therefore had a potential 11 month march on my class mates because age in year was considered important at 11 plus.

Still, I got into Weymouth Grammar and instantly, er, floundered. I initially struggled academically but also struggled socially with people who were very different from me. I ended up in a low set. I was bullied incessantly from 12 to 15. Hmm, Over time I realised I was clever, I could do things and worked my way up the "pecking order". I ended up doing my maths "O" level at 13 and getting a B, because I was good. Subsequent "O" level activity was mixed and I ended up with 7. Average. But in that time I'd fought my way to acceptance, it was hard graft and often literally painful but I became well liked. The minor point here being that grammar schools are not, and never were, paragons of virtue and harmony, they can be as tough as any comp.

I moved on to the sixth form and was adamant that I was going to to do Maths, Further Maths, Physics and Chemistry as my core subjects. I was advised early on to drop chemistry,primarily 'cos I'm a lazy bastard, I did not demur. 3 half decent A levels later I joined the Royal Navy as an Officer.

Result for Grammar Schools! Er, yes, 30 years ago! Let's fast forward

My son Ben is the son of a Grammar School boy and a Grammar School girl.... let's hold onto that idea.

Ben goes to the local comp. It's ostensibly one of that hateful twat Campbell's "bog standard" comprehensives but yet it's not. Thanks to a visionary head and stunningly well utilised investment, it's a school to die for in the area. And yet, bizzarely, due to the town's mining history it's not seen as being as good as Bath Schools! I would send anyone to his school it's a place of real quality.

As for him? He's top in his year in Maths, Science and (er) Technology (woodwork I think). He didn't quite make the national maths challenge finals in London but he was, by a league, "best in school". At 13 he realises that he needs to have all the talents and works really hard at English, he's good at it but by no means perfect, he continues to strive. He's also a fabulous rugby player and wants to join the school's CCF. In short, a well rounded pupil in a good school.

So. Where are we? Right where David Cameron is as far as I'm concerned. He is utterly right to call the the grammar school debate "sterile". Yes I was a grammar school boy but my son is doing better at his state school than I ever did. Let's be grateful he's the product of a parental past that was grammar school based, and move forward to what creates a culture of excellence in all our children. Ben's school aggressively "sets" its pupils and gives them individual targets EVERY SINGLE YEAR! This is, I think, Cameron's vision and it's one I utterly endorse.

So my conclusion, albeit a little obvious, is that where I once trod, Ben is now following. Today's good comprehensives can, and do, deliver the same level of performance as my school back in the 70's. Let's just teach to ability, let's let talent flow, and let's fund the right class sizes to do that.

Parents should be up in arms that less than a third of comps are like that despite so called "record government investment." Therein lies the scandal, not that grammar schools may or may not have a viable future but that this government cannot, or more likely will not, see the wood for the trees.

[Denis Cooper]

"David Cameron is facing a fresh challenge to his authority"

If that's so, surely it's only because David Cameron has tried to set himself up
as an authority on education, when in reality neither he nor David Willetts know
or understand much more than many parents have worked out for themselves?

I can certainly relate to the claim that "Children in areas with nonselective schools are more likely to go backwards between the ages of 11 and 14".

[Alex Fisher]

Good for Graham Brady. Ideally DC would replace Willetts with Brady and perhaps we could then have a coherent education policy rather than something which is going to end up to the Left of Labour, if it isn't there already.

[His Eminence]

Bet he sacked in reshuffle after Brown becomes PM. He certainly should be.

[TomTom]

but Gareth's son could not pass the A-Levels Gareth sat.....the modern A-Level is little better than a 1970s O-Level.

The dumbing down of the exam syllabus has made the comparison impossible as Durham University longitudinal studies have shown

[Denis Cooper]

"We do need more discipline in sticking to our messages".

Absolutely, even if the message is half-baked, incoherent or plain wrong.

If this is how education policies have been developed in the past within each party, that explains a lot about the current deplorable state of the system.

[TomTOm]

http://www.suttontrust.com/news.asp#a027

The Trust's research detailed for the first time the educational backgrounds of a list of the UK's 100 leading national newspaper editors, columnists, leading broadcast editors and news presenters both today and 20 years ago. It found that over half (54%) of today's top journalists were educated in private schools which account for 7% of the school population. A further 33% went to grammar schools, and just 14% attended comprehensives schools, which now educate almost 90% of children.

In 1986, 49% of the top journalists were educated privately, 44% were educated at grammar schools and 6% at comprehensives.

The survey also reveals that of the 81% of the leading journalists in 2006 who had been to university, over half were educated at Oxbridge, including a third who went to one institution, Oxford. Among the 1986 sample, 78% were university graduates, 67% of whom had been to Oxbridge, including two-fifths to Oxford.

Top 200 comprehensive schools socially exclusive

A new study by the Sutton Trust based on data provided by the National Foundation for Educational Research shows that high-achieving comprehensive schools are socially exclusive. The research also shows that those schools which are responsible for their own admissions take a low proportion of pupils on free school meals (FSM) which is an indicator of a school's overall social mix, compared to the postcode sectors in which the schools are sited. This suggests that without adequate safeguards the Trust schools proposed in the White Paper could become socially selective.

The report finds that the overall proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals at the 200 highest performing comprehensive schools is 5.6%, compared to 11.5% of children in the postcode sectors of the schools, and 14.3% in secondary schools nationally.

Comprehensive schools which are responsible for their own admissions are found to be much more likely to feature in the top 200 than those which do not, accounting for 31% of state secondary schools, but 70% of the top 200. These schools are unrepresentative of their local areas, with 5.8% of pupils eligible for free school meals, compared to 13.7% in their postcode sectors - which is close to the national average of 14.3%. By contrast, the 61 local authority controlled schools in the top 200 are generally found in affluent areas, with FSM rates of 5.9%, which is well below the national average. These schools are representative of their neighbourhoods, with a proportion of pupils on FSM of 5.0% - only one percentage point lower than the areas in which they are located.

The report also highlights that faith schools account for 18% of all secondary schools, but 42% of the top 200 comprehensives, including 59% of the top schools which are responsible for their own admissions.

Teacher opposition to academies grows

More than half of secondary school teachers in England and Wales (53%) do not think that setting up city academies is an appropriate way of raising standards in deprived areas, according to a MORI poll of secondary school teachers commissioned by the Sutton Trust and published today.

This is a significant increase from the 37% who said this in response to the identical question in last year's MORI poll commissioned by the Trust (which was set up in 1997 by Sir Peter Lampl, to help non-privileged children). Only 26% of teachers agreed with the Government's approach, down from 36% in 2004.

[Paul Kennedy]

14:32

"the modern A-Level is little better than a 1970s O-Level".

Not so sure that is true, looking at what my son is studying, and if my memory serves me correctly, the topics covered are the same, the difference today is that the modern "A" level is both in 2 parts AS & A2 and modular, when I took......and failed mine......at a Grammar school, I sat exams at the end of the second year on the whole syllabus. Now if what TT is saying is that the marking is also easier, well that's not the fault of the students.....on the subject of which, good luck to all of them in their exams which they will be sitting over the next few weeks, and who alas unlike me 30 odd years ago, could fail his exams and go out and get a decent job.....with a company car at 18, today's young people are not so fortunate if they fail.

[Jorgen]

Cameron preaches decentralisation in his speeches. But he takes the nanny-approach within the party. If Brady's facts are flawed, Cameron could just explain where.

[David Walker]

Little surprise that Iain Lndley moronically follows the party line. In search of a safe seat are we Iain? Somehow I don't think a rolly polly like yourself fits nicely into the appearance obsessed party we now have.

[Denis Cooper]

Personally I think it would be better to start again from scratch, and think about how the education of all children could be improved free from constraints such
as "The Guardian would attack us on that". But it's too late for that: Cameron has nailed his colours to the mast of an incoherent and illogical policy, and if anybody within the Tory party dissents they're treated as a rebel, a traitor to the party.

[Robson]

There has been so much interpretation and re-interpretation of the statistics over the past couple of weeks.

Safe to say that whatever you believe, you can spin the statistics to back up your particular argument.

Any politician can do that.

Brady's made his point. Now he needs to shut up and move on. That's what a grown up party full of politicians ready for government does. Not uphold the beliefs of Daily Mail editorials and obsess about what is - to the wider voters at large - a side issue ofd little or no importance in their area.

As for Cameron's education policy being 'incoherent'. Hmm, it's not that difficult to understand. He wants setting and streaming within schools but he's not going to build any more grammars. Pretty clear really.

So much for the moratorium on 'grammarsgate' threads!

[Paul Kennedy]

15:22 A somewhat uncalled for personal comment David.

[malcolm]

Whilst I believe that what Graham Brady says is right, I as a supporter of Grammar Schools believe he should make his views to David Willetts privately. As Richard Carey mentions above we do not want stories of Tory splits.

[Ted]

Denis
Any frontbencher who wishes to be free to attack a policy agreed by the shadow cabinet has that choice but it also means he resigns from the frontbench and from collective responsiblity.

I would think there are two reasons he hasn't yet been sacked; first to let the embers die down on this argument and secondly because there is a reshuffle due before the summer recess. As for his future well sometime in Cameron's second term he might be appointed PPS to a bright spark from the 2009 intake.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Paul, I only wish I had the wit and forensic debate skills of David Walker... ;)

[michael mcgough]

"this story is, I think, more interesting for the willingness of a frontbencher to speak out against the policy and the restrained response from the whips' office."

Perhaps now,other front benchers may at last feel less retentive with their views on the EU,Nuclear energy,immigration and other pressing issues

[Andrew Woodman]

Isn't it time to put this issue to bed now, and concentrate on how to make our Education policy as it is deliver.

[Aghast]

Well done Graham Brady..

At long last a front bencher with a mind of his own.

Buy Brady, sell Fox/Hague on next months Poll.

[Richard Carey]

Perhaps now,other front benchers may at last feel less retentive with their views on the EU,Nuclear energy,immigration and other pressing issues

Indeed - I'd love to hear as much as possible from Brady on the EU, Duncan on energy and Green on immigration policy. Good idea, Michael.

Oh, wait - that wasn't what you meant, was it?

[Steve Whittaker]

Hardly a shock that Graham Brady has weighed in in favour of grammars- not just because he went to one, but because as MP for Altrincham and Sale West, he covers half of Trafford's grammar schools! He knows they work, we in Trafford know they work, and he is rightly proud of them.

[Policy Dog]

If the policy was right in the first place, Brady wouldn't have needed to come bounding in with information to the contrary.

[David Belchamber]

I applaud Denis Cooper's comment at @ 15.28:

"Personally I think it would be better to start again from scratch, and think about how the education of all children could be improved free from constraints such
as "The Guardian would attack us on that".

Let us work ab initio towards an education system that reflects the needs of pupils with very disparate abilities and attitudes - and also the needs of society over the next 20-30 years.

[ToMTom]

Isn't it time to put this issue to bed now, and concentrate on how to make our Education policy as it is deliver.

Oh so there is a policy somewhere in this confusion ?

Not many outside the magic circle seem to think so

[michael mcgough]

"Indeed - I'd love to hear as much as possible from Brady on the EU, Duncan on energy and Green on immigration policy"

"Oh, wait - that wasn't what you meant, was it?"
That'll do for openers;
1)Brady---how is the movement for EU reform performing?
2)Duncan----will nuclear energy still be a last resort for the Tories whilst Brown takes measures to ensure the lights stay on?
3)Green---what is the Tory policy to mitigate the many problems arising from mass unlimited migration from the EU?

[David Walker]

Oh come now Iain. I am surprised anyone let you off with that glib and facile plunge into statistics. In fact, a year or so ago people used to get wound up by your arrogance/ignorance - now they just ignore you. You aren't worth it.

[mirthios]

I'm confused. Am I supposed to vote Conservative because I espouse conservative policies, or because 'call me Dave' says so? Isn't this where New Labour went horribly wrong?

[Policy Dog]

'Isn't this where New Labour went horribly wrong?'

Surely that would mean that Labour were right about something before. At least DC is leading the Conservative Party which has previously been known to come up with some good ideas. He just needs to start listening to them.

[Richard Carey]

'Isn't this where New Labour went horribly wrong?'

Would that be before or after the three times they thrashed us at general elections, or are you exempting that from your analysis?

[John Ashworth]

I am delighted Graham Brady has spoken his mind, now I hope he does the same on the European Union. The problem is that is off agenda like so many subjects for the Conservative Party, so at least if Graham did speak out he would end up shortly a free agent on the backbenchers.

[Aghast]

Demonstrating Leadership potential for the future when the bog hole bound 'project' falls over.

[601]

I read an answer to a question Willets gave in the on-line Independent newspaper. It seems to be a different position I've read about in the last few days.

"if a school has developed a recognised specialism, we would allow them to select 10 per cent of the pupils on that basis."

He seems to be suggesting he will allow acadamies to have some academic selection(thay can only select in sports and music at the moment). This makes me feel a wee bit better.

Can someone please help me out here?

I'm utterly confused!

[TomTOm]

"if a school has developed a recognised specialism, we would allow them to select 10 per cent of the pupils on that basis."

That is a restatement of existing Labour Policy.....why doesn't he just cross the floor ?

[malcolm]

No 601, the 10% figure is the standard mickey mouse gimmickry that passes for Education policy from new Labour with regard to City Academies. They can select 10% of pupils by 'aptitude' (not ability but what the difference is I don't know) in sport,music or languages . I suppose it's extremely important that the can select 12% or 20% in these subjects. It's even more important that we don't select 10% by their 'aptitude' in English or History or Maths. That Educationalists have been paid to come up with this garbage is a crying shame, we shouldn't be suprised that politicians like Blair and Blunkett bought the gimmickry. It is however a bit of a tragedy that the Consrvative party have seemingly swallowed it hook,line and sinker too.

[Oberon Houston]

Yes, what a good lad, more please. In-fact, why don't you resign and spend 100% of your time undermining the leadership of your own party - you'll fit in well with a certain group, whom I'm sure you know.

Come on, this bloke is paid to do a job, and instead is passing stats that have nothing to do with his brief to the papers. Data that supposedly undermines the stance of the leadership of his own party. What a creep.

[Oberon Houston]

malcolm, someone once gave me some advice about succeeding in ‘politics’, and it was this, “strong beliefs, loosely held”. I am not being flippant, as you are so clearly against the leadership on this, I’m just hoping it doesn’t become a European type stance for you, the language is certainly getting there.

[601]

"It's even more important that we don't select 10% by their 'aptitude' in English or History or Maths."

He seems to be saying he want's them to select students on their ability (yes actual tested ability) in Science and Maths. Which is good because we need more engineers and scientists not pop stars.

[Oberon Brown Nose]

"strong beliefs, loosely held”

I heard that too Oberon, but the full phrase was "strong beliefs, loosely held, a careerist pr*ck doth make".

We have enough of those without wannabes like yourself!

[Richard Carey]

Good to see that we're raising the tone of debate here, isn't it?

[Richard]

"Data that supposedly undermines the stance of the leadership of his own party. What a creep."

You would rather that such data be covered up just because it happens to be inconvenient?

[malcolm]

You might not like the lanuage Oberon but I notice you choose not to attack the substance of what I wrote.
Calling a fairly respected MP from our own party (even though I think he was probably wrong to make his opposition public) a 'creep' does not in my opinion add much to the debate.
Personally I would prefer to move on from the Grammar school debate as it seems that leadership are going to persevere with their flawed policy in the face of all opposition and argument.

[John Reeks]

He had no right to divert from his brief so extensively and should have been sacked, not because of his views on grammar schools but either because of his sheer stupidity or a deliberate attempt to harm the party leadership.

[Bob B]

"Personally I would prefer to move on from the Grammar school debate as it seems that leadership are going to persevere with their flawed policy in the face of all opposition and argument."

Yup. Judging by media reports, Brady seems likely to lose his job as a shadow minister and that looks very much as though an enterprising and enlightened bid to venture proposals for evidence-based policy for schooling has fallen victim to bolstering the image of David Cameron as the next "strong leader" regardless.

The question is whether an attempt to restore the ascendancy of deferential politics over rational discussion in the Conservative Party is going to work. Some evidently haven't yet grasped that the major political hurdle in these times is persuading people to vote in elections. In the 2005 election, the percentage of non-voters in the electorate was larger than the percentage of the electorate who voted for Labour candidates. Between the 1997 and 2005 elections, Blair lost almost 4 million votes and half the membership of the Labour Party. So much for the Blair strong leadership model.

[TomTom]

Sack Mercer, sack Brady, sack all Conservatives and fill up the Front Bench with yes-men and Liam-clones. Then watch as a 1997-scale defeat opens up at the next General Election as Labour looks less flaky and less of a risk than a Petulant Prince and his Schoolfriends.

[Stephen Yeo]

You would rather that such data be covered up just because it happens to be inconvenient?

But the hollowness of the "data" was exposed by the very first contributor to Have Your Say on The Times website

Overall attainment is higher in grammar school areas firstly because the middle classes are attracted to the concentration of advantage that grammar schools represent; because grammar schools only continue to in that area because those areas are more middle class people (who defend grammar schools). So Graham Brady's figures don't say anything except what we already knew: the middle classes are attracted to highly performing state schools.

Tom Ogg, Oxford,

Surely anyone who expects to be taken seriously in this debate has to address the point Mr Ogg (and David Willetts before him in his original speech) has made.

[Mike A]

Exactly, Stephen.

http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1851800.ece

"The Tories dispute the validity of his figures. They say the results of children in selective authorities such as Kent cannot be directly compared with those in nonselective areas because of children’s differing social backgrounds.

They cite research from Professor Paul Gregg, from Bristol University, who found that selection had “little or no impact on attainment” when social background was taken into account.

Mr Gregg also found that in selective areas, a clever child from a poor background had a 32 per cent chance of passing the 11-plus, whereas a more affluent highability child had a 60 per cent chance."

[Jake Russell]

A cabinet wether in government or opposition can only be effective if each member of that cabinet signs up to collective responsibility.
Graham Brady as not done that. He as in fact been totally arroggant in thinking he as a right to comment on another shadow ministers brief.
I hope that when the reshuffle comes in a few weeks he is toast.

[Denis Cooper]

If the middle classes are attracted to highly performing state schools, and if their children actually meet an objective entrance standard, why should the state set its face against making it easier for them to send their children to such schools?

I could understand the state setting aside their preferences if they wanted to send their children to highly performing schools without the need to meet an exacting entrance standard, or if they wanted to send their children to poorly performing schools because it was more convenient and they were lazy or indifferent about education, or if they wanted to send their children to schools where they would learn to hate and kill the rest of the population, or even if they wanted to send their children to schools which excluded children of other races or religions.

But the only reason Willetts has given for not allowing more grammar schools
is that not enough working class children get into them, which is a direct result
of having too few and generating an unnecessarily intense competition for places - creating an unhealthy additional layer of competition, which revolves around the motivation and resources of the parents rather than the ability and/or aptitude of the children, and which middle class parents are therefore more likely to win.

Surely the solution is to increase the supply of places to match this legitimate demand - open new grammar schools, so there are enough places for all the children of all classes who fall within the top quartile of ability and/or aptitude.

Otherwise, give all parents vouchers to the value of state education, and let the market supply what politicians refuse to supply for invalid ideological reasons.

Up until now I've always been in favour of state education and cool towards the idea of education vouchers, but Willetts and Cameron have changed my mind.

[Graeme Archer]

Aptitude vs ability ... it's not semantics, but a fit with the plan to have banding within schools. Some academies will specialise but will still want to differentiate between the fastest and slowest in their speciality subject, as well as everything else (nor is there any reason why being brilliant at one thing would make you any good at anything else (eg I could never get the hang of social interaction despite being quite good with nummas)).

PS Sack Brady, obviously. Sack anyone who is on the front bench who even hints, mildly, ever, at a within-cabinet disagreement.

[Oberon Houston]

malcolm, Peter inson wrote an interesting article in the Independant last week:

http://education.independent.co.uk/schools/article2574682.ece

He is bluntly saying that deprived areas have a large proportion of troublesome pupils, which so hinder those that want to learn, they are then driven away.

It ends with this:
Secondary modern schools are no longer to be found in leafy suburbs. They are in more deprived areas. They, and the larger comprehensive schools that have succeeded them, struggle to gain popular support. Politicians ignore or are unaware of this. The law can and does oblige parents to send children to school; crucially, it cannot compel them to support schools. So, politicians maintain the pretence that the right system, if only they could find it, would transform those schools. What they cannot do is to transform families.

Never mind the system Mr Willetts. What will you do for this troublesome minority of children who cannot help themselves and serve only to hinder others? What rabbit will you pull out of the hat for the secondary modern schools, official and unofficial, that remain among us?

I think he is saying that the core problem is really a growing breakdown in social cohesion. Food for thought anywy.

[TomTom]

The law can and does oblige parents to send children to school;

Patently untrue.

English Law requires parents to educate their children.....in contrast to Germany it does not compel parents to send their children to school

[Observer]

Secondary modern schools are no longer to be found in leafy suburbs. They are in more deprived areas.

Funny that....it would imply Grammar Schools are to be found near Secondary Moderns....otherwise they must be Comprehensives

[James Maskell]

Brady canot be sacked so close to this debate. He needs to wait a while for it to die down and when Gordon Brown takes over, then remove him when people arent looking. Sacking Brady now would make him a martyr and kick up the whole debate again.

[Denis Cooper]

Mike A @ 09:00 - "Mr Gregg also found that in selective areas, a clever child
from a poor background had a 32 per cent chance of passing the 11-plus, whereas a more affluent high ability child had a 60 per cent chance."

It follows that when Professor Gregg made this comparison either:

a) he used an inaccurate measure of "cleverness" or "high ability", or

b) he used an accurate measure of "cleverness" or "high ability", and he has shown that the 11-plus is a poorer measure of "cleverness" or "high ability".

Fine, but what's the point about the merits or demerits of selection by ability?

Nobody need be wedded to the 11-plus as the perfect measure of "cleverness"
or "high ability". If Mr Gregg has a better measure, why not use that instead?

[Traditional Tory]

So according to this morning's Telegraph Brady faces the sack - not now but later. 'Conservative sources said that Mr Brady stood "no chance" of remaining in his post past the summer'.

Reading the posts on this thread it's evident that it is finally dawning on certain erstwhile Cameroons just what a socialist tyranny is being enforced upon our party by those who have hi-jacked it.

Of course they are in denial, and we understand that. Some of them write so angrily these days, and it's because they have been betrayed even more comprehensively than those of us who were quick to recognise these opportunists for what they are.

Grammarsgate (now officially referred to as such in the press) has shown that Traditional Conservatives and ex-Cameroons can make common cause. It's a taste of things to come.

Now all Tories have to learn the lesson that it is better to fight on our feet than die on our knees.

Graham Brady speaks for all of us who care about our party.

[Frank McGarry]

William Wilberforce was an honest and independent-minded Tory MP but that was 200 years ago. Is it impossible in today's world to be an honest and independent-minded politician? Do we want our leader to be a 'Fuehrer' and all our MPs to be simply lickspittles and lobby fodder?

I am writing a letter of support to the brave Mr Brady.

[ToMTom]

So according to this morning's Telegraph Brady faces the sack - not now but later.

The selfsame story has been fed to all the newspapers

[simon]

I think Mr Brady has worked out that being a member of Cambo's Shadow Cabinet is not the 'be-all-and-end-all!' Good on him. Too many MP's moo into the lobbies etc, when becoming 'ministers'. Something tells me we may be seeing more of this as time goes on...

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

From Guido's blog - certainly food for thought:

One Rule For Etonians, Another Rule for Grammarians

Guido is sure that when Boris publicly disagreed with party policy and went off-message, Dave was challenged to sack him, he retorted that the Conservatives
"welcomed debate" and "were not control freaks like New Labour" etcetera. Dave isn't welcoming policy debate from Graham Brady, he is sacking him.

He not only has the wrong view on schools, he went to the wrong school..

[colin foster]

Well done Graham Brady.
If Cameron reads the table on Page 8 of the Daily Mail (Tuesday May 29th) then even he should be able to understand. The sources being DfES and the House of Commons Library show that "two brains" did not even do the most basic research. That is criminal when we are considering the future for children.

[William Norton]

A cabinet wether in government or opposition can only be effective if each member of that cabinet signs up to collective responsibility.
Graham Brady as not done that. He as in fact been totally arroggant in thinking he as a right to comment on another shadow ministers brief.
I hope that when the reshuffle comes in a few weeks he is toast.

Posted by: Jake Russell | May 29, 2007 at 09:15

Jack Stone has a twin?

[malcolm]

Yes I noticed that William. I wonder if he's taken a leaf out of Chads or Traditional Torys book and decided to post under multiple pseudonyms. I didn't think he had the wit!

[Bill]

The Tory Party under Cameron has completely lost the plot. Even before Cameron they were an absolutely useless opposition party. Indeed I am not sure if they understand what it means to oppose or that it is their job to do so. We should not be surprised however because far too many of them have lived in the parallel universe of professional politics for far too long. How many of them have had proper careers for a decent length of time where they have achieved distinction before entering politics. I know some have but they tend to be kept on the back benches lest they cast a shadow on the wet behind the ears mob who seem over-represented on the front bench.

[Traditional Tory]

I wonder if he's taken a leaf out of Chads or Traditional Torys book

Come on Malcolm, let's be friends.

I know it chokes you to admit it but we're on the same side now.

And we all make mistakes...

[Traditional Tory]

I wonder if he's taken a leaf out of Chads or Traditional Torys book

Come on Malcolm, let's be friends.

I know it chokes you to admit it but we're on the same side now.

And we all make mistakes...

[Stephen Yeo]

Well done Graham Brady.
If Cameron reads the table on Page 8 of the Daily Mail (Tuesday May 29th) then even he should be able to understand. The sources being DfES and the House of Commons Library show that "two brains" did not even do the most basic research.

No, no, Mr Foster, it is you, Graham Brady and the Daily Mail who have not done thie research. As I pointed out in my comment at 8:06 today (above) they have failed to make any allowance for the fact that areas with grammar schools attract more middle class parents.

I understand where the Daily Mail and many of the contributors to this site are coming from but Graham Brady should really take more care before drawing attention to the fact that he is not the sharpest tool in the box.

[Jamie]

Absolutely. Graham Brady should be sacked from the shadow cabinet on the basis not of his disloyalty but on his inability to apply basic critical reasoning to statistics. The one clear factor in this debate has, somewhat sadly, been the tendency of those 'pro-grammar' to argue from gut instinct (and in the case of the mail/telegrpah, hysteria) and those against to resort to fact and reason. It requires better balance.

[Geoffrey G Brooking]

I think Graham Brady was very silly doing what he did and as a very experienced politician I think he must have known full well that such comments were in effect signing his own political death warrant.

David Cameron is being very courageous working on our new Education policy with David Willetts and both deserve all the praise I can offer them.

So David and David - please keep up the good work because your imaginations are fast becoming an inspiration.

[Opinicus]

@Brady
Only if Willets goes the same way for his ridiculous use of statistics to oppose grammar schools by claiming that grammar schools inhibit social mobility by saying that only 3% need FSMeals as compared to 14% in the general community, instead of asking how many per cent of people passing the 11 plus need FSMeals and comparing with that.
We argue from gut instinct and statistics whilst your side appear to argue from neither.

[Opinicus]

@Jamie I meant - 3C for me

[TomTom]

Anyone hear Estelle Morris on WATO calling for simpler ballots to get rid of the 164 Grammar Schools ?

Cameron has really done the dirty on those who send their children to Grammar Schools encouraging Labour to push to finish them off - after all the work Blair and Adonis had done to bury the issue

[Opinicus]

@George Brooking
Schluuuuuuuuuuuuuurp

[deborah]

The one clear factor in this debate has, somewhat sadly, been the tendency of those 'pro-grammar' to argue from gut instinct (and... hysteria) and those against to resort to fact and reason

Jamie seems to be on-message. Avoid debate, just rubbish your opponent. That's another New Labour tactic we seem to have adopted.

[deborah]

[email protected] 13.46
Please don't! Accurate but far too much detail.

[Richard]

I wonder how the middle classes must feel when it is inferred that too many of their children are getting into good schools?

[Dan]

Well it's been 18 years and 3 general elections since I turned 18. I voted Conservative every time and have been a part member for the last few years. But Mr Cameron's games are turning me off in a big way; I really don't think I'll be renewing my membership, and this may apply also to my vote. It's not just his arrogant dismissal of those who are pro-selection ('delusional' was it?) - it's a growing realisation that the man is an intellectual lightweight with no principles, willing to sell his party down the river for the sake of a few votes.

I mention his intellectual shortcomings because nothing else can explain the belief that grammar schools aren't 'working' because too many middle-class pupils go to them. Well, for one thing many Grammars are rural, and therefore couldn't draw all their intake from a particular 'class' even if they wanted to. But more obviously, if there are only 164 Grammar Schools, and those schools are good, in a free market economy it is to be expected (for the city schools particularly) that surrounding house prices go up and only those in a certain wealth-bracket can afford to live within the catchment. The more grammar schools that there are, the less this effect holds - and the more free dinners the school can hand out, if that is really the measure of a school these days.

Why does almost everyone in this 'debate' start from a viewpoint that equates money with either intelligence or class?

[Dan]

Erratum: I know I sound like an old fogey but I actually meant "...12 years since I was 18".

[malcolm]

Graham Brady has quit the front bench. What a shame for all concerned

[Scotty]

"Cameron has really done the dirty on those who send their children to Grammar Schools encouraging Labour to push to finish them off - after all the work Blair and Adonis had done to bury the issue"
That is one of the most ridiculous comments I have seen on this site! Considering the hysteria in Telegraph and on this site regarding the issue it really would be cheek to now blame it all on Cameron if as expected some in the Labour party would now seek to finally finish off the last of the grammar schools.
I saw this coming with some of the comments made by the Deputy Leadership candidates and I just shook my head at the lack of political nous used by some who saw this as bandwagon to attack Cameron. Some of the MP's with grammar schools in their constituencies tried to heighten their profile in their own constituency press by turning this into an argument about whether we retain the ones we have when that was never in doubt even with the new education policies being put forward.
Next you will be blaming Cameron for global warming because he has tried to make us more aware the changes we needed to make, or maybe just blame him for a rise in crime because someone in the Labour party coined the phrase "hug a hoodie"?

[TomTom]

hat is one of the most ridiculous comments I have seen on this site! Considering the hysteria in Telegraph and on this site regarding the issue it really would be cheek to now blame it all on Cameron if as expected some in the Labour party would now seek to finally finish off the last of the grammar schools.

Scotty you have written most of the ridiculous comments on this site, but fail to read what you write.

Blair spent a great deal of effort with Adonis to make sure ballots on grammar schools went nowhere; he even pushed Morris out for blocking his changes. The issue was dead and buried...but Willetts stirred up the whole issue......Cameron is irrelevant....he does not understand State schools since his family has never been near them and thinks it is where the domestic staff learn to be deferential

Willetts has stirred up Labour on Education and stirred up Tory parents....the ful betrayal of Conservatives on Education has been made evident when Cameron states even Thatcher had no interest in what the Conservatives laid out as a program for voters.

Well, now we see how contemptuous the Conservative leadership is of voters, Bromley might be repeated....at least Cameron now has an excuse if Brown inflicts a 1997-scale defeat on him at the next General Election.

[Scotty]

"..he does not understand State schools since his family has never been near them and thinks it is where the domestic staff learn to be deferential"
TomTom, I think your last post is very revealing! Luckily I do make sure that I use much wider sources to gather information to make a fair and balanced judgement on various issues and politicians. I have followed this debate from the start and I disagree with your interpretation of who might be responsible if some are now to make the case for getting rid if the last remaining grammar schools.
This whole issue was dead and buried but it was not Cameron or Willets that stirred up this hysterical over reaction.

[TomTOm]

and I disagree with your interpretation of who might be responsible

I shall permit you to disagree with my viewpoint Scotty. I won't brief against you and you do not need to resign......but I expect in future for you to be more careful with your deviationism or you may have to visit Room 101

[Simon Denis]

Just noticed on the Telegraph website that Dave's father-in-law has been having some trouble with his neighbour - so much so, in fact, that according to the neighbour in question, he "made me feel like an inferior person." Must be a Cameron family trait.

Cameron is a bit like Flashman, really; the suave public school bully who grovels to the headmaster - Blair - twits the deputy - Brown - kicks his subordinates - Brady - and utterly dominates his fag - Osborne. Osborne, meanwhile, is more of a prep school pipsqueak - Molesworth, perhaps, ganging up with his big friend against grammar school "oiks".