Cameron and Willetts say no to new grammar schools

It's the main story on this morning's Today programme and features in many of this morning's newspapers: David Willetts' belief that grammar schools don't help the poor and that we'd be better to increase the number of City Academies.  A leader in The Telegraph is pretty mean about the speech - accusing 'Two Brains Willetts' of having at least one overheating brain.

In a speech that focuses on reversing the decline in social mobility Mr Willetts will say that grammar schools are no longer very effective in helping poorer children to succeed.  He presents a number of statistics to back up his argument.  Read a pdf of his 7,000 word speech here.  Mr Willetts will advocate five alternative policies:

• Removal of the barriers that make it hard for social entrepreneurs to set up new state schools;
• Encouragement of more schools to become Academies by ending the requirement for sponsors to contribute £2m;
• "A single Academy contract for multiple schools to make it easier for outside providers to run nationwide networks of schools within the maintained sector";
• A new emphasis on whole class teaching, streaming, setting and robust discipline "so we can show that even in our toughest areas, traditional teaching works";
• Experimental teaching methods are examined more rigorously before becoming accepted in a large number of schools.

Speaking to ConservativeHome this morning the Shadow Education Secretary admitted that the policy was "untidy".  Existing grammar schools would face no threat from a Conservative government and would be allowed to expand.  What would not be permitted, however, in a policy that contradicts the party's emphasis on localism and choice, would be for social entrepreneurs to set up a new grammar school in a poorer area.  Norman Blackwell of the Centre for Policy Studies, interviewed for this morning's Today programme, said that he deeply regretted the new Tory policy.  The former Head of the Downing Street Policy Unit, Lord Blackwell said that there was strong evidence that high ability children fare much better in the selective system and there should be more opportunities for high ability kids from poorer backgrounds to be able to attend grammar schools.

A poll in January last year found that 73% of Tory members disagreed with their party's opposition to new grammar schools although 49% understood that it might be good politics.

Where ConservativeHome can welcome the Tory leadership's approach to social mobility is in its emphasis on the family.  Here is a key section of Mr Willetts' speech:

"We all talk about family breakdown as if somehow it is evenly spread.   We are not being honest with ourselves.  The evidence assembled so powerfully by Iain Duncan-Smith’s Social Justice Commission, is that poorer families are far more fragile.  Meanwhile, middle-class parents invest far more effort in raising their kids than they did a generation ago.  My parents didn’t spend time driving me around to tennis coaching or music lessons (and I didn’t love them any the less for that).  Nowadays, middle-class kids get all that and more, and probably extra tuition to help them do well in the exams at 11. This growing difference between families is a theme to which I will return in a speech next month."

If ConservativeHome is disappointed at today's announcement, we'll try and be more positive about next month's speech on the family.

Comments

[Sam McG]

When you say "ConservativeHome is disappointed"... who is ConservativeHome? Is it the editor? If so, why not say "I"?

[Jennifer Wells]

Eton-educated Cameron and grammar school boy Willetts should not be denying the choice of an excellent education to others. It's a bit like them pulling up the ladder behind them.

[Chris]

No change from 2005, and to be perfectly honest I'm not suprised. I'm personally a fan of grammar schools, but I understand the need to shelve them in the meantime for political reasons.

I can imagine grammar schools re-appearing in a second or third term Tory government, but with the political climate as it is it would be silly to throw away our electoral chances over a single issue at this point in time.

[Planet Earth]

No no no. Are Cameron and Willetts deliberately trying to p*ss off as many of our core supporters as possible?

I have yet to find any potential Conservative voter on the doorstep who is witholding their vote because of our support for grammar schools.

I went to a grammar school and can testify that my classmates came from all walks of life (well, nearly - admittedly no-one from the upper class). Promoting more entrepenurial involvement in schools is good, but why stop them from setting up a grammar school if they want? Half-baked. An incoherent set of policies like this does not bode well for the longetivity of a future Conservative government.

[David Strauss]

One of the biggest causes of under-achievement in the Inner Cities was the closure of grammar schools in those areas in the 60's/70's. Re-introducing them with academies would be a real boost.

I don't want to get into a class debate, but I feel deeply uncomfortable that privately educated people in the Party are kicking away the ladder that grammar schools provide.

[michael mcgough]

"A poll in January last year found that 73% of Tory members disagreed with their party's opposition to new grammar schools "

and by default agree with UKIP's policy?

[David Strauss]

One of the biggest causes of under-achievement in the Inner Cities was the closure of grammar schools in those areas in the 60's/70's. Re-introducing them, and building more academies would be a real boost.

I don't want to get into a class debate, but I feel deeply uncomfortable that privately educated people in the Party are kicking away the ladder that grammar schools provide.

[Edward]

It's all very well to say that Grammar schools don't *fairly* select at 11. That all depends upon what or whose conception of "fairness" is being applied: it's a necessarily vacuous comment on its own.

Isn't it unfair selection to select all children to be educated at the lowest common denominator at 11?

[Clive Elliot]

The comprehensive system was always a huge mistake, forced through against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Conservatives. The long-term damage has been much predicted over the years, but only now is it becoming generally recognised. The system cannot work, people will do everything legal to further their own children's future, and when that transposes onto moving house to a 'nicer' area, then the only logical response by authority determined to impose the comprehensive 'ideal' is something like the compulsion evidenced in the ballot scheme being introduced in Brighton.

The end-result of the comprehensive system will be that the only children who get a really good education will be those whose parents can afford to pay for them to go privately. More socially divisive than ever.

The new policy is totally misguided. No-one says that Grammaer Schools should be resurrected exactly as they were, but the essential task is to enable clever children from weak backgrounds to maximise their potential by mixing with other clever children, instead of being sucked down in a miasma of mediocrity.

No amount of fiddling around with academies or whatever can negate the fact that some form of selection is essential, at quite an early age, if the bright are to maximise their potential.

[Steve]

Agree with Jennifer. Naturally, things have changed but grammar schools generally provide an excellent education and also improve standards in schools in the same area.

We should be allowing all successful schools to expand and introducing education vouchers - proven to work in the most deprived areas. I appreciate though that this might be too much too soon - but I hope one day we grasp the nettle of education reform.

[tim]

Willetts and Cameron know very well that those nostalgics who support Grammar Schools have nowhere else to go.

Ho Ho.
Welcome to triangulation.

[Peter Hatchet]

"would not be permitted, however, in a policy that contradicts the party's emphasis on localism and choice, would be for social entrepreneurs to set up a new grammar school in a poorer area."

Christ almighty. What awful strategy.

We're learning the wrong lessons from the 90s.

The logic seems to be "Labour won by ditching its traditional policies" so "Conservatives can win by ditching our traditional policies".

How narrow-minded is that?

What the shadow cabinet *fail* to realise is that it is NOT our policies that is our problem. It is the image, tone, language, arrogance and dislikeability of the people in the party, PLUS the belief we do not share the concerns of the majority.

By ditching these positions all we do is reinforce the view that we don't stand for anything different and/or that we were wrong all along.

And I speak as someone who supported Cameron for the leadership. I'm having doubts now.

The only reason I can think of at the moment to vote Conservative is that we'd be more competent in implementing existing government policies. That's it.

What else would change if we won the next election?

[R.Baker.]

Another nail in our coffin, and,another demonstation of how out of touch David Cameron actually is.We are even more doomed than we were just yesterday.

[David Cooper]

Well put, Jennifer. It's almost as if they're saying "we don't need your kind" - namely the bright children of working class backgrounds - in the same way as the socialists' message was "don't rise above yourself". It's equally sad to see a typical politician's exaggeration in David Willetts' claim of "overwhelming evidence that academic selection entrenches advantage and does not spread it." Are we going to hear an equally forceful comment as to how the last 30 years of comprehensive education demonstrate overwhelming evidence of dumbing down and denial of opportunity for bright working class children?

Sorry, on this occasion it's Two Brains, No Common Sense. I speak as someone from a working class background who became upwardly mobile thanks to a grammar school. I'm sure I'm not the only one disappointed by this pronouncement.

[Og]

I predict that this will be as long a thread of comments as you have seen on any topic.

This is a rank bad decision. If you are going to run an education policy that allows private schools to flourish (with charity status), alongside comprehensives, city academies and existing grammars, why on earth proscribe against more grammars, which WORK, both as educational establishments and social mobility agents?

This is daft, and whilst there might be some good bits to come out of the new policy, it is a confused bit of Cameroonian angst, a soft-leftie trying to wriggle out of a traditional Tory position.

[Happy Tory]

Hang on a minute. There might be something very good in this. Point three in Tim's summary might be about making it easier for large numbers of school to escape centralised control. Depending on what freedoms are allowed to those schools, then this could be a brilliant thing. The debate is not just about Grammar Schools, but also about freeing up our whole school system from the constraints that it labours under.

[Graham Checker]

"No no no. Are Cameron and Willetts deliberately trying to p*ss off as many of our core supporters as possible?"

Yes - they are.

It is part of their electoral "strategy" - learned from reading "The Project" without bothering to understand it.

[Tory T]

Nice language.

I am very much in favour of selection - but I do think there is evidence that it works within schools, ie in streaming. I've seen some sink comprehensives in my time and agree that we should not abandon children to them.

Posters do not seem to understand that uner the Conservatives there would be no new comprehensives at all.

Look at the package as a whole, and there is much to comfort educational traditionalists in it. I have no doubt it would result in a massive raising of standards and discipline.

[malcolm]

Have to agree with most of the comments above. As a Grammar schoool boy in the 1970's I saw first hand the success of many boys from poorer famillies who have been able to better themselves through their education. Now we have a postcode lottery where if a person lives in a nice area they tend to go to good schools and if not, not.
Are Academies really the answer? When they were first introduced I thought they were a typical Blairite gimmick. Since their introduction I thought their results were at best, mixed.Please correct me if I'm wrong about that as I'm genuinely not sure.
It will be interesting to hear the views of those who always support the leadership in particular on this subject.

[Tim]

I wonder what the results would have been, had this been announced prior to the locals?

[mark]

This means that the Tories are now playing the lowest common denominator game along with the socialists.
By the end of the 1960's we had a secondary education system which was flexible enough to give all children of eleven upwards a chance to excel if they wished to avail themselves of it.
Those who failed to pass their eleven plus could still join the top stream of the local secondary modern school and take O levels. There were even schemes to allow pupils to transfer from secondary modern to grammar schools if they improved their work.
This system meant that the hard working and able kids regardless of their social grouping could study together uninterupted with other equally committed pupils.
In contrast to this, bright or hardworking children now have to sit in classes with the local thugs whose only aim in life is to attack anyone who shows signs of wishing to make a success of their life.
Because of todays situation, the only pupils who are sheltered from the disruptive element are those fortunate enough to attend a private school. Perhaps it is because so many of the shadow cabinet attended private schools, that they fail to realise what they are condemning most children to.

[Richard]

"When you say "ConservativeHome is disappointed"... who is ConservativeHome? Is it the editor? If so, why not say "I"?"

Does the Daily Mail say "I" in its editorial columns?

Regarding grammar schools, one only has to point to Northern Ireland where the maintenance of the system has resulted in better grades in comparison to England in both grammar schools and secondary moderns.

The reason grammar schools in England have a predominantly middle class intake (I believe Kent is a particular example) is because they have predominantly middle class catchment areas. Furthermore it is the shortage of grammar schools that pushes up house prices near them and therefore makes living near them even more exclusive.

One might also point out to Mr Willetts that the majority of the country is essentially middle class. Complaining that they have too many places in good schools isn't really going to bring them onside.

[Richard]

PS

I would be fine with this if schools were allowed to decide their own admission policy and therefore turn themselves into grammar schools. Unfortunately I can't see this happening.

[Chris]

I know the inevitable Cameron is a Judas comments are going to continue to come in, but can I just remind everybody that this pledge is identical to our 2005 manifesto, which every Conservative MP stood on.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Everyone knows that I'm a "Cameroonie" but this policy is stark raving mad. I agree with Jennifer Wells, who said: "Eton-educated Cameron and grammar school boy Willetts should not be denying the choice of an excellent education to others. It's a bit like them pulling up the ladder behind them" @ 09:07.

[Dusanne]

Selection by ability...definitely, even through formal testing. Having been through mixed ability classes when I was at comprehensive school this should be applauded and expanded.

What I don't see is why there is any inherent advantage of doing this as a pretty much one-off exercise at eleven and bundling off kids to different schools, as opposed to setting and streaming within one. In the latter case, it’s much easier to cope with the demands of late developers, and those who may struggle as they progress.

I know you can come up with some impressive statistics for the remaining selective areas, but we have to be honest and say there are too few now to read too much significance into them. Did overall standards drop at first through the comprehensive system? Pretty certainly yes. Are we now ahead or behind where we would have been if the system had not been introduced? Sadly, the debasement of the examination system means I don’t think anyone can say for sure.

I would though have liked to see the message on the security of existing grammar schools on the grounds of localism emphasised a bit more strongly.

[Ken Westell]

It is the selection process that gives rise to so much anger here in Southend. The child educated in a primary school does not have either the encouragement or the initiative that is given to the privately educated child. Consequently when it comes to the exam the advantaged child, that is a course the better off child, is much better prepared, and the electorate in general is thus compelled to pay for what is seen by the middle classes as an education they are entitled to as of right.

[Tory T]

I confess I am amazed to see that comment from you Justin!

The basic principle is sound; set in schools by ability, teach traditional subjects, end "experimental" nonsense, end poisonous LEA control, use traditional methods like phonics, and give far greater disciplinary and exclusionary subjects.

Instead of "great schools + sink comps" I think you will wind up with all great schools.

[chrisblore]

I cannot believe Cameron and Willetts are doing this. I went to a grammar school myself (I left last summer) and yes, a large number of the people in my year were what one might term a "middle class" background. However, some most definitely were not and were given a fantastic education that would have otherwise been out of reach. It's all very well for Cameron to preach about schools not being open to the less well off when he is a former Etonian. Results at these academies have been mixed at best and, once again, concentrate on the cities at the expense of suburbia.

Quite apart from this, people are going to find it increasingly difficult to differentiate between us and the Labour Party. Cameron has let the party down hugely on this one.

[HF]

Since DC said this last year why say it again?

Is there any evidence that saying it will attract many new votes? I doubt it as I can recall no great surge of support amongst voters on this.

But it does risk switching off some of the core voters.

Although I despise Alistair Campbell, this is yet another sign that we need a better PR influence on how we use the media.

[Ken Westell]

It is the selection process that gives rise to so much anger here in Southend. The child educated in a primary school does not have either the encouragement or the initiative that is given to the privately educated child. Consequently when it comes to the exam the advantaged child, that is a course the better off child, is much better prepared, and the electorate in general is thus compelled to pay for what is seen by the middle classes as an education they are entitled to as of right.

[EdR]

I'm extremely happy with Cameron and the way he's going forward on most fronts.

Except this one. Idiots. I'll also echo Jennifer in post #2.

F grade and two Saturday Detentions.

[malcolm]

What evidence have you Tory T, that Grammar Schools will lead to 'sink Comps'. the experience of Northern Ireland would suggest otherwise.
More importantly what evidence have you that City Academies are anything more than a gimmick?

[A disappointed Cameroon]

I'm certainly a Cameroon, but I have to say I'm very disappointed with this policy.

One of the reasons I am a Tory and despise Labour is the different approaches to opportunity. Labour seem to want to make society more equal by dragging the best down. I always felt the Conservatives were more interested in halping the most able achieve irrespective of background. When achievement is backed up by social responsibilty and civic pride, two other Tory virtues, you get a society which respects and values achievement, whilst also appreciating that we are all in it together.

This does appear to be a surrender on quite a core issue I'm afraid.

[realcon]

Willetts was totally unconvincing on the Today programme this morning.

[EML]

I think "grammar schools" have a tainted image thanks to 40 or more years of attack from the socialists.

It is just good politics to ditch the wording but continue with the spirit of the idea of social mobility.

What's wrong with accepting City Academies and Trust schools as a viable 21st century alternative to grammar schools?

[tim]

But nobody here seems to be answering the question that Willetts posed.
1/6 as may poor kids get into Grammar Schools as you would statistically expect if the 11 Plus was genuinely a level playing field.

Anyway.
Bottom line to Tory voters.
If you dont like it youve got nowhere else to go

[Cllr. Tony Sharp]

As someone who is in favour of grammar schools and would like to see opportunity for children from poorer families greatly increased, rather than grammars phased out, I was initially disappointed to see this morning's reports.

However if the idea is for the growing number of academies to become de facto grammars by having the same high educational standards, then maybe there is some merit in the leadership's thinking.

I would like to see some more meat on the bones about what this really means for educational standards and opportunities for bright kids before going off the deep end on this one.

[Prentiz]

This is another attempt to show dramatic difference between 9new Cameron and old Conservatism. Labour has been very successful in using Conservative support for grammar schools to scare parents - many of whom are very reticent about grammars. Moving away from our old position will help us pull in middle class floating voters. However, there are still a lot of places with grammar schools which we need to take. Taking such a strident pose of opposition will be characterised by Lib and Lab in those areas as being opposed to existing grammars.

[True Blue]

For goodness sake! How many grammar schools were opened under Maggie? How many grammar schools were closed down under Labour? It's a non-issue, lost in the distant past, where many of you still dwell.

The grammar school / secondary modern divide is dead. That whole terminology is elitist.

We need to open up new schools, independent from the LEAs with streaming according to ability WITHIN the schools. No wonder we appear out of touch. I sometimes think we don't deserve Cameron. As another poster said, reintroduction of grammar schools is UKIP policy. Doesn't that tell you something?

[thatcherite]

Tim wrote "Willetts and Cameron know very well that those nostalgics who support Grammar Schools have nowhere else to go."

I am nostalgic and would prefer to see all schools privatised or run by the voluntary sector. That would help get rid of the socialist and environmentalist indoctrination that has replaced real education all over the country.

Grammar schools are, in practice, the only alternative at the moment. We supporters can support UKIP or not vote at all - like millions of others who are dismayed by the social democratic policies of all parties.

For now, I have stopped donating to the Conservative Party in protest at Cameron's loony left-wing and green policies. That has cost the party several thousand pounds already. I will not fund the salaries of non-Conservatives such as Steve Hilton and those who produced the Tory Tosser tosh.

[Denis Cooper]

The previous system provided an excellent education for those suited to a grammar school education. The problem was the poor education provided for those - the majority - who were not suited to a grammar school education. Of course the socialist solution was to "level down" by abolishing the part of the system which actually worked well, rather than seeking how to improve the rest, but that problem would still be there if new grammar schools were set up and solving it would be an indispensable part of any rational policy.

[Mark Wallace]

I grew up in North Tyneside, somewhere the glorious socialist revolution swept away Grammar Schools many years ago, and it is interesting to note that fewer kids from there go to Oxbridge now than did in the 60s when Grammars were still around.

Due to a lack of Grammar Schools I went to an independent school in Newcastle, where my contemporaries came from almost every single postcode in the North East - thanks to Assisted Places. The AP scheme was just a taster of the great things a full Grammar school system can do for social mobility. I saw friends get amazing opportunities from backgrounds where the state had taught them to expect none. After them, their younger siblings were disgracefully denied those opportunities when AP was abolished.

If we truly want to see a society of equal opportunity, hope, aspiration and mobility then we have to go Grammar.

[Disenfranchised]

Always fun to see the comments from the Tory grassroots frothing at the mouth over their leadership's latest attempt to outflank NuLabour.
Personal views notwithstanding, I think it's a pretty astute move from Cameron and Willetts - as one of the comments says, welcome to triangulation.
Tho whether politics is healthier in the long-term under a triangulation system is a moot point.
My own view is that getting rid of grammar schools without developing any better alternative benefits only the very rich (who can afford to educate their children privately) and reduces social mobility.
But then, er, maybe that's why Cameron and Willetts are in favour of it...?

[Alex Fisher]

As a CF member currently at a private school I am bitterly disappointed by this policy; despite my underlying satisfaction with DC's leadership I do not believe that Willetts is even bordering on competence in his current position.

One only needs to look at Trafford for an example of grammar schools working and working effectively. Our Party should be about promoting choice as only through choice can we offer the electorate the freedoms they demand and deserve.

So why is it that Willetts et al are petrified of making a decision that will increase choice and thus increase freedom? Are they committed to the Blairite agenda which has led to schools without playgrounds and no pupils, only 'learners'?

As a private school pupil I understand that I receive many opportunities that are not available to others. Propping up Blair's policy will only result in the current situation extrapolating itself resulting in the worst form of selection, selection by income.

Wouldn't Mr. Willetts rather see a fair system of selection by ability as opposed to selection by income where the middle and upper class move to good areas where there are good schools or go private and those who can't afford it are left with whatever's left?

Without Direct Grant, Assisted Places and now grammar schools, the ladder of social mobility has now truly been moved well away from the feet of a bright young person from an underprivileged background.

This is without any doubt the worst policy advocated by the current leadership and I would strongly advise its reconsideration. I often criticise my local MP, Labour's David Chaytor, for going to a Direct Grant school and then setting up 'Comprehensive Future,' which campaigns for the removal of grammar schools. Don't be just as hypocritical, please, Mr. Willetts.

[Steven Bainbridge]

I went to a Comprehensive, and there were no Grammars around where I lived, so I'm not really sure as to what the main differences are. But I didn't have much problem with Comprehensives per se. I simply felt that classes should have been organised according to ability, which they often were, but not always, and not always very well if they were! But if this was to take place more in Comprehensives, were ability sets are clearer and more focussed, would people still be against the closure of grammar schools?

[B. Stone]

If David Willetts doesn't think that grammar schools promote social mobility, then why does he not make public schools illegal and then we can all benefit from the lowest common denominator of dreams which politicians may think up for us!
Grammar schools have been the way for thousands of working class children (with parents of limited resources)to make progress in life.
We may forgive David Cameron, who was born with a golden spoon in his mouth, for not understanding the benefits which the grammar schools have given us, but which of his two brains is Mr Willetts using?

[tim]

Private schools in areas with grammar schools tend to be full of posh thick kids and children of drug dealers.

[mark]

This has been poorly presented as usual. Instead of "we will scrap Grammar Schools", it should be "we will shield diligent pupils being educated on comprehensive sites from disruption of their education by the introduction of streaming by ability and effort".
I'm afraid that Willetts is just acting as a mouthpiece for advisors who are out of touch with the real world.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

The usual mealy-mouthed double speak from a politician - this time from David Willets. This time Grammar Schools have fallen foul of the latest thinking of Chairman Cameron (it surely isn't Willets idea is it?) So Grammar Schools are to be thrown out of the Tory pram because they favour middle class children, Mr Willets tells us. Those schools still in existence will be allowed to remain (evidently much to the detriment of working class children living in their catchments area, but who cares?).

Why doesn't he give us the real reason for Grammar Schools falling out of favour with the Tories? If he was to tell us that: "Despite their excellence, the real reason was because the BBC and the Guardian etc., would probably provide a platform for
"Experts" criticising the Tories for being elitist by advocating more. So, we the, the Conservative Party fearing that we will lose votes if we support Grammar Schools have no choice but to abandon them. Should you believe that Grammar Schools should be supported further don't blame us".

I was brought up in Dagenham and don't get much more working class than that. There was an excellent Grammar School nearby held in much respect. I had cause to visit it some years later, when it had been turned into a Comprehensive, and I was greatly saddened to note that in my opinion it appeared to correspond to Campbell’s description of bog standard.

Two Brains Willet, Eh! No wonder we regard politicians with contempt. In the end honesty is the best policy - ask Blair.

[Laura M]

Mark W: I grew up in Newcastle as well, and due to the lack of grammar schools I went to a comprehensive, and then I went to Cambridge! Marvellous.

[Bill]

The Tories attitude towards education is so hypocritical. I am in no doubt that were one to suggest the abolition of public schools or their simple restriction Tory grandees would cry blue murder. What about freedom, what about diversity, what about excellence they would say. But when heavily taxed parents want the same for themselves in the form of grammar schools the Tories say no more. Talk about double standards. If grammar schools are bad why haven't the Tories the integrity to say they would abolish them? Do they not have the courage of their convictions? Or deep down do they think the grammar schools are a good thing after all. Or is it because they hope city academies will become grammar schools in all but name.

[Don Hoyle]

If J Hinchcliffe thinks this policy is sh*te we Are in trouble.

[Mark Wallace]

Laura M, I didn't suggest that people going to Comprehensives can't get into Oxbridge - there are of course a great many people who do, and it's an impressive achievement (I didn't go to Oxbridge). Unfortunately, it is true that fewer on Tyneside manage it now than did when their opportunities were enhanced by Grammar Schools.

[S Jamieson]

I live in a Council where one half of the Borough is selective and the other half is comprehensive. Interesting to note the Sedondary Moderns in the selective area are out-performing most of the comprehensives and the socio-economic differences were not that great. House prices have shot ahead in the selective area but bearing in mind that it was mainly in the solidly Conservative Areas of England that Grammar and Secondary Moderns were kept, it is little wonder that the number of free school meals (an unsophisticated measure if ever there was one)was low. Poorer areas elected Labour Councils who set about the 1960s and 1970s destroying Grammar and secondary modern schools so only the more prosperous areas are left.
I see the Lib Dems are plotting to get rid of Ming. Its about time the Tories plotted to get rid of Cameron

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Chris, you say this is the same policy that all Tory candidates stood on in the 2005 election. But Michael Howard said Grammar schools would survive and thrive under the Conservatives - which isn't what this policy is advocating.

I even remember Michael at the despatch box mocking Blair saying something along the lines of - from one Grammar school boy to one public school boy.

I wonder how many MPs and both sides of the House went to Grammar schools and how many of their children still go to them.

[William Norton]

Hmmm - so let's get this straight: Lib Dems groping towards knifing their second leader of this parliament; Labour in the doldrums and steadily behind in the polls; we've made sweeping gains in the local elections - hey, let's start a civil war! I suspect this is all about heading off a Brown announcement on education during his 'coronation chicken' tour.

There was nothing wrong with grammar schools, the problems were all with secondary moderns (which, let's be honest, were grossly under-funded and treated as dustbins) and technical schools (which never got built). The irony is that we don't actually have comprehensives any more, we just have schools which are called comprehensives. Arguably, modern funding and OFSTED - even better, a voucher system - might have made the old tripartite system work.

In most towns now there is a recognised 'top comp' which has effectively taken over the role of the old grammar so we have catchment area competition, reduced chances of getting in and the added complication that the preferred school is often (but not exclusively) a faith school. I've lost touch with the debate: are we in favour of faith schools this week?

[Duncan]

Does anyone know if this proposal seeks to abolish existing Grammar schools or just prevent the creation of new Grammar schools?

[Tory T]

The latter, Duncan.

[Scotty]

Like Steven Bainbridge I went to the local state school in the Thatcher years, I lived in a rural area where there was no grammar school option. Considering that it was a comparatively small school compared with the size of state schools today it certainly turned out pupils who did well and went on to excellent Universities/college or vocational training. Its secret was the size and its FLEXIBLE curriculum which enabled both brighter and less able children to receive the extra tuition they needed within the school.
Smaller secondary schools with streaming, good discipline and a challenging academic curriculum or vocational emphasis to suit all academic ability were working and producing results in the 80's in some area's
Grammar vs state was an argument fought and lost years ago, IIRC we did not open any new grammar schools under Mrs Thatcher.
Labour have dumbed down educational standards to fit targets and we now have kids going to University who are not educated or prepared to the same standard as 20 years ago and there is no emphasis on making sure those less academically able are being encouraged to into a career which would give them a skilled job.
We need to improve standards in the system we have for all children and we don't do that by pulling the chosen few out while leaving the rest behind.

[Councillor Colin Foster]

I like many suffered the abysmal education system within Manchester. Now as a Conservative Councillor in nearby Trafford I see first hand the excellent results within Grammar schools and also their positive effect on the results within our complimentary High Schools. We in Trafford have the best results in Key Stages 3 and 4 in the country whilst still having some of the most deprived wards in the country. The graph showing how we accelerate the results from the level of Key Stage 2 results across the country is there for all to seee. All the children of all backgrounds within the Borough have access to the system and the results prove it works. I notice the Cameron elite fail to make any comment about Private Grammar schools that we public sector reliant plebs cannot afford. Willetts says there is overwhelming evidence. So what about the results year after year in Tory Trafford. NOTE TO LEADER: WE are the ONLY Conservative Authority in the Greater Manchester Conservative political desert AND provide education to many hundreds of Manchester residents from other areas because they want a Grammar school and High school education for their most important priority - the future for their children. LOOK at the evidence in Tory Trafford for ALL children.

[Oberon Houston]

Mmmm... were city academies not just a variation on a conservative policy called CTC (City Tech College) intoduced by the Major Govt.

I don't have issues with this, Willetts has articulated what the difficulties with Grammars were, i.e. in effect by the time of the 11+, many kids from poorer backgrounds are behind. The ideas he has tabled for a modern policy platform to address this, which includes streaming, I think are very exiting. And before you say it, I mean it, I don't slavishly follow the line on this. We should be focusing the debate on what we would like to do going forward now, not harking back.

[True Blue]

<<
So why is it that Willetts et al are petrified of making a decision that will increase choice and thus increase freedom? Are they committed to the Blairite agenda which has led to schools without playgrounds and no pupils, only 'learners'?
>>

I don't know, was Maggie committed to the Blairite agenda, too?

They've re-announced a policy that has has been Tory policy for nearly 30 years. Think about why they might have done that.

[Chris]

Chris, you say this is the same policy that all Tory candidates stood on in the 2005 election. But Michael Howard said Grammar schools would survive and thrive under the Conservatives - which isn't what this policy is advocating.

This policy is saying that existing grammar schools will not be axed. Michael Howard said the same thing except he demonstrated enthusiasm about keeping grammar schools.

I like the principle of grammar schools and I'm a strong proponent of selection in schools. In an ideal world I'd like to see a three tier education system, with the lowest tier providing vocational courses. However, I am also a realist and I just can't see us winning a general election with grammar schools as a central policy, without being the incumbent government. The hostile media environment we face today already makes getting our message across difficult.

As for delcaring my interests, I'm a university student, and a product of comprehensive education. I'd like to think I didn't turn out too bad ;-)

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

The ironic thing is that just as many lefties (think Diane Abbott) are doing u-turns on selective schools after decades of supporting comps, we want to ditch them.

Two brains Willetts? As Ricky Tomlinson would say, 'my arse!'

[Bill]

I tend to agree with William Norton at 10.37.

The reason parents strive to send their children to private, grammar, and favoured "comprehensive" schools is not only because they want the best for their children but because they are terrified of their children receiving the worst with all the implications that go with it. Instead of cynical attempts at triangulation the Tories should be focussing on the hard issues of which the most important are discipline and teachers. Almost everything else is arguably irrelevant.

[Account Deleted]

Hello

[Oberon Houston]

Good God, you would think Willetts had insulted personal family members here. The guy is an asset to the party and has a large contribution to make on policy denates, and we should be doing just that now, debating the issues, not insulting the guy.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Chris - I too went to University without a Grammar school education. If a local community wanted to have a Grammar school where there isnt one, why wouldnt we as the party of local decision making and choice, support such a move?

[John Reeks]

Theres nothing unique about grammar schools; its not the institution which provides a good education, its the teachers. The answer isn't to bring back an outdated institution, but rather to give teachers the powers and resources they need to do a better job. That's why I welcome the statement from David Willetts. What was unique about grammar schools really? It was that they were well funded and the teachers had the power they needed to teach well and maintain discipline. As far as I see it, this new Tory policy is about giving every school the privilege that grammars once had, and if you do that, you no longer need a two-tier system anyway.
Also, the statement "Conservativehome is disappointed by today's statement" is not acceptable for a site that claims to be the voice of the Tory grassroots, you're defining the parameters of the debate before its even begun.

[tim]

Re Colin Foster.

Traffords non Grammar schools are very very poor.

eg by % with five good GCSEs
Sale Grammar 97
Sale High 26
Stretford Grammar 94
Stretford High 19

Truly an abandonment of the bulk of your constituents.

[malcolm]

I have some sympathy with your view Scotty but I fail to see how City Academies are the answer. Please tell me, because David Willets certainly hasn't.

[Evan Price]

Hold on ... calm down. As David Willetts has described in his speech, families are very different today. He points out that our priorities are different and in many respects our attitudes and aspirations for our children are different.

We cannot turn the clock back and create grammar schools in places were there have been no grammar schools for decades. He does not say that he will not support existing grammar schools ... on the contrary, he says that he will continue to support the existing grammar schools. What he does say is that he won't create a whole new raft of grammar schools.

We need to ensure that our policy moves with the time; we cannot hark back to something that worked 30 years' ago and assume that it will work now. The fact is that if we did, there is little doubt that the existing divisions in society and the education of our children would become increasingly marked ... people would move to satisfy basic selection criteria and others would try to find methods to enhance their own child's chances - something entirely natural and not to be comdemned; but when it comes to state education, we need to try to remove the injustice that results to the poor kid whose parents are not that interested in.

[malcolm]

That's an excellent idea Jonathan Shepherd. We are supposed to be a localist party why not devolve the type of school offered to the counties who could organise local referendums etc.

[Richard]

"We need to ensure that our policy moves with the time; we cannot hark back to something that worked 30 years' ago and assume that it will work now."

A selective system was reintroduced into East Germany after decades of communism. There's no reason why it can't be reintroduced here.

By your logic we should never have denationalised in the 1980s - that was effectively turning the clock back.

[Richard]

"We need to ensure that our policy moves with the time; we cannot hark back to something that worked 30 years' ago and assume that it will work now."

A selective system was reintroduced into East Germany after decades of communism. There's no reason why it can't be reintroduced here.

By your logic we should never have denationalised in the 1980s - that was effectively turning the clock back.

[Bill]

I wonder what percentage of Tory MPs educate or have educated their children in the state primary and secondary sector?

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Further to my comment at 1016. I have just beem listening to BBC radio 5. A discussion was in taking place between a BBC presenter (I believe his name is Bacon) and a supporter of Grammar Schools. The BBC didn't even bother with an "Expert", the presenter was most hostile (and still is now live ) to the idea of Grammar Schools. Which supports my previous view that Cameron is obsessed with pleasing the Lefties at the BBC.

If you want to be governed by the BBC vote Cameron.

[Alison Anne Smith]

What a shame....& I thought we were starting to do well.

[James cullis]

what a DISGRACE thge grassroots need to say we stand i thought we were conservative.

im a Cameronite but i worry that we are loosing our conservative heritage let fight thisand stop this drift to the left

[Bill]

Dontakemelaugh is right. I just head the tail end of the programme. One commentator said she was disgusted at the Tories turning their backs on grammar schools. But then you can't expect Cameron or his groupies to resonate with working class and middle class voters who cannot afford to send their kids to the sort of private schools Tory MPs may have attended.

[Happy Tory]

I don't think that Willetts et al would support anything that in the long run decreases choice. There's just the pragmatic question of how to get to a system that works. If we can get to a system where schools can offer different types of education for different children but have to ditch the label "Grammar School" to get there, then that might perhaps be okay.

The people in this thread who are starting to talk about teachers and discipline are on an interesting tack. We need to do some really important things like free schools up to use whatever methods of teaching and discipline that they like.

[Jonathan Munday]

What is the point of having two brains if you dont use either?

I went to a direct grant grammar school and my very first political experience was holding a placard outside Parliament (now of course illegal) protesting against the Wilson government ending the direct grant scheme. This is core stuff for many of us and if Tim and TrueBlue think we have nowhere else to go then they are going to find we go nowhere near the polling stations(or UKIP) come the next election.

As for Laura M, the idea that generalising from the particular is a valid argument, is an idea she can only have picked up at a comprehensive school or a second rate university.

The policy is not only wrong, it is ineptly presented. Firstly his headlines are all about grammar schools. He won't garner a single vote from people opposed to grammar schools. He won't win the plaudits of the mediocracy that he so desperately craves, because education is the only issue where the BBC exec stops lying to herself and votes for her children rather than her prejudices. And he has really seriously pissed off the core vote on probably our most important issue after or even before Europe.
He has gifted Labour with a perpetual line of attack about why we wont abolish existing grammars if selection is bad and we are now saying that Blair was right to waste so much money on City Acadamies. Education is not about buildings or individual schools it is about teaching practice.
I understand the point that this may allow more selection as City acadamies are all selective and I strongly believe that setting but not streaming should be compulsory in all subjects in all schools as mixed ability teaching is now fundamentally discredited.

If he had announced that MAT was dead and that all schools would set, his headlines would have been about academic rigour and an education appropriate for each child in the school. As it is his headlines are about grammar schools - an argument irrelevent to every parent outside NI, Essex, Kent and Buckinghamshire who will hate him for it.

Inept, incompetent, led by headlines and unable to control them. Last month I said I was very disatisfied with Willetts in the Survey. Can the editor please ensure next month's survey includes the category "man needs sacking".

[Richard]

"The grammar school / secondary modern divide is dead. That whole terminology is elitist."

What is wrong with elitism?

"As another poster said, reintroduction of grammar schools is UKIP policy. Doesn't that tell you something?"

Not creating more grammar schools is Labour policy? Doesn't that tell you something? Just because UKIP support a policy that doesn't automatically make it wrong.

[Giles Marshall]

As most of these comments suggest, the Willetts policy is flawed, even from the perspective of good politics. Most aparents want a good state education provision in their area, and most would be desperate for a decent grammar school system to be set up, especially if it was accompanied by a well funded and planned non-grammar system.

Mr. Willetts has made much of the fact that grammar schools do not benefit the poorest in our society, but that is surely because they have no option to go - successive governments have ensured the removal of all selective education from poorer areas, leaving only the articulate, politically active middle class to retain them in some places.

A bankrupt educational policy should not be allowed near the Conservative manifesto, never mind form a part of its headline pledge, but that is what Mr. Willetts is offering.

[Alex Fisher]

True Blue - I think there is a difference between supporting and cherishing the grammar schools which do exist and Willetts-esque open hostility to them, although looking at the Party website he already seems to have toned down his rhetoric a little.

And I do think we need to get away from the idea that every policy adopted in the 1980s is suitable now. We have to be progressive Conservatives adapting with the times as we need to. Just because the Thatcher government didn't expand grammar schools doesn't mean that a Cameron government couldn't.

I strongly believe that, particularly in the North, we would win huge support by going to the next election with a promise of a grammar school in every town.

[Torygirl]

What nonsense. If there is a grammar school in an area, it picks the brightest pupils, not the ones who can pay for dinner.

[Mark Fulford]

On a general level, society is suffering because we’re failing to debate the extent to which the self-sufficient should be responsible for the dependent. For a horrible analogy: if you go to help a drowning person, you have to be very careful they don’t pull you down too.

In over-considering the minority who can’t provide good education choices for their own children, we’ve removed choice from every parent. We’ve taken families that were self-sufficient and forced them to be dependent -- and weakened society.

School education policies should operate on a totally local level with huge diversity across the country. It is absolute madness that politicians in London have more say about my children’s education than I do. If I don’t like local education policy, my choice should be to move to Dorset, not France.

Personally, being an ex-grammar lad, I'm not a big fan of grammar schools. Mine certainly didn't suit me. But for others it was a perfect fit, and it's certainly not my right to choose for them. Politicians seem to think that they do have the right to make basic choices for people, but they don't. They only have the right to represent.

[Rich Amner]

Has anyone here actually read the speech?

How on earth people can accuse Willetts of left-wingery when he is endorsing the Milton Friedman model of education is beyond me.

[Account Deleted]

I disagree strongly with this policy - but we should all recall it was Thatcher as education secretary who shut down the most Grammar schools...

Back to the point.

The point that 2% of Grammar School children have free school meals - firstly, in NIreland, where there are Grammar Schools across the county, this figure is 8%. Secondly, why not argue that "the Conservatives will allow for provision for the brightest 25% in all schools to receive remedial coaching in the year running up to the 11+". This would level up not down...

But to grapple with Willett's more generally...

Willetts is wrong about 'sponsors'. The people in charge of a school should be the headteacher and teachers - accountable to parents. Not some (sometimes dodgy) millionaire. He even implies that the idea schools should be 'for profit' is wrong - as if private schools are failing!

Willett's correctly identifies family breakdown as affecting poorer families more than middle class ones. Poorer children are more likely to fail at school because of this. The answer to this should not be levelling all schools down to remove competition - but trying to strengthen the family unit.

The main thrust of our education policy should be vouchers, schools being able to open wherever there is unmet demand and exisiting schools are failing, schools being able to offer a wide range of areas (some specialising in vocational, some academic, some artistic, and a minimum set of rigorously evaluated policies (discipline + streaming) imposed from the centre. Private companies/charities etc. should all be able to run schools.

Basically, what it boils down to is no one will dare say some schools will always be better than others. The trick is to get as many good ones as possible - but we all have to dance around and pretend that all schools will be equally good. It isn't going to happen and to pretend otherwise is to condemn far more children to failing schools than is necessary.

[Umbrella man]

The key issue is this:

The party of choice and localism should not stop inner city parents coming together to set up a new grammar school.

[Russell Long]

I live in Kent, the bastion of the Grammar system. Within 3 miles of my house are four grammar schools.

For Willets to claim that too few working-class people go to Grammar schools is to, not to put to fine a point on it, bugger around with statistics. It's a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

Grammar schools will attract middle-class parents looking for the best education they can find. As a result, they will move to an area where grammar schools remain. This is what has happened here.

As a result, more middle-class children will go to grammar schools. This skews the demographic and is (to people who like to define fair as 'mediocrity for all') "unfair".

Were these schools available across the country as they were in the 1950s and 1960s, Social Engineering Willetts would have nothing to get his panties in a bundle over.

This area's schools have a superb reputation. Even the majority of the 'comprehensives' score well in the national league tables.

If Willetts' primary motive was to plunge a dagger into the back of Greg Clark and John Stanley then he has achieved that wonderfully.

I'm not surprised that he saved this announcment until after the local elections. As a UKIP supporter (since Greg Clark's "Polly Toynbee is a Goddess" article in the Torygraph) I can only thank Willetts for making my job 100 times easier in future elections.

[Ted]

We surely should be over this argument by now - Grammars disappered across the UK (except for thiose few LEAs) before and during Margaret Thatcher's time in power.

The big concern is to raise the educational standards of the huge majority who are being poorly served by the comprehensive system. Providing a very few gifted pupils with Grammar Scools doesn't address the problem. What we have been about is developing a new and diverse system that delivers that better education to the many - that's not about a retaining the current system but changing it. It's not about going back to 1944 either. Lets look at where we are, whether another disrution in Education architecture is worth it or if we evolve the current stuff towards a better system.

[Bill]

"Education is not about buildings or individual schools it is about teaching practice." Jonathan Munday has summed it up better than I did.

Time and again Cameron's Conservatives try and fail to ape new Labour's triangulation and spin intead of identifying solutions to problems. Quite frankly they insult our intelligence.

[Richard]

"How on earth people can accuse Willetts of left-wingery when he is endorsing the Milton Friedman model of education is beyond me."

Has he said anything about vouchers and allowing schools to have total independence (including over admissions)?

[Rich Amner]

This isn't actually a change in policy on grammar schools, is it?

This isn't new, surely? Only on this site is a social engineering scheme for identifying kids at the age of 10 for optimal careers 'right wing' and a competition scheme 'left wing'.

Again:

http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/

[Rich Amner]

"Has he said anything about vouchers and allowing schools to have total independence (including over admissions)?"

a) Yes. A chunk of the speech is about supply side constraints on vouchers and what we need to do to get per-pupil funding to work.

b) No. That's not the Friedman model. The evidence of school choice which works does *not* allow selection.

[Rich Amner]

Dear Lord.

"Education is not about buildings or individual schools it is about teaching practice."

None of you have actually bothered reading the speech have you?

[Scotty]

"I have some sympathy with your view Scotty but I fail to see how City Academies are the answer. Please tell me, because David Willets certainly hasn't."
Malcolm, I did not mention City Academies but rather emphasised my own personal experience and my views on where we are going wrong with the education system today.
Smaller schools, streaming, good discipline and a flexible curriculum which does not penalise children of all levels is not rocket science, I don't think that you can achieve a better education for all when we have state schools of the size we see today. There are no city academies in my area but what we do have is overcrowded state schools which by their very size and curriculum have become more inflexible and fail everyone.
Back in 80's in the state school I attended we were able to produce children who were accepted to the top Universities anywhere in the UK without them needing any outside tuition or a private education to achieve it. Now I look around me and all I see is parents paying for extra tuition to help their children pass exams which if we are all honest are not as tough as they used to be.
Today a child's course choices can be turned down because there are not enough pupils to fill the class and justify a teacher. Back in my old school I saw examples of a flexibility which allowed the curriculum to fit around the child and for them to be given a timetable and even one to one teaching if required to help them do the extra course they needed if it helped them get into a particular University of their choice. In effect what many parents are paying for in the private sector was being provided by the state in the only school available in my area.

[Richard]

"The evidence of school choice which works does *not* allow selection."

If selection doesn't work then surely under a free market in schools those that do best will refuse to select?

Giving schools total independence is preferable to a state-enforced grammar system but a state-enforced grammar system is superior to a state-enforced comprehensive system.