The Tory grassroots have acquired a new confidence during the grammar schools row

David Cameron has just been on the Today programme to defend the party's education policies.  He said that the policy change on grammar schools was not politically motivated but was part of his determination to ensure that the party focused on raising educational standards for every child.  He repeated his insistence that it was "delusional" to believe that a large number of extra grammar schools could be created and sustained.  Citing the experience of Sweden and Holland the Conservative leader said that he wanted parents to choose schools for their children and not schools choose children.  He also set out his thinking on education in an op-ed piece for this morning's Times.

During the interview there was a slightly testy exchange about the large number of privately-educated people who sit around the Conservative Party's top table.  David Cameron insisted that he was working hard to build a much more representative party by encouraging women and people from black and ethnic minority communities to become Tory candidates.

Radio 4's John Humphrys asked David Cameron about ConservativeHome.com's finding that 73% of Tory members opposed the Tory policy on grammar schools.  Mr Cameron said that he would not follow the party but lead it.  You can hear my own 7.16am interview on the Today programme by visiting the Listen Again page.  As I said during that interview I believe the last few days have been very important for the Conservative blogosphere.  The opinion of the grassroots Tories who work so hard for our party's success can no longer be ignored because of discussion fora like this.  I'm grateful to shadow cabinet ministers like David Willetts (yesterday), Alan Duncan (today) and Theresa May (last week) who understand that and are enthusiastic about engaging with you through this site.  We're currently planning how to respond to the findings of the policy review process as they are unveiled throughout the summer.  A mixture of comment threads and online votes will be held to ensure that Oliver Letwin and the party leadership get a sense of your reaction to recommendations by the policy groups.  How ConservativeHome does this will be supervised by the new accountability board that we announced yesterday.  It's absolutely true that David Cameron is the leader of our party and deserves loyalty.  But the current leadership doesn't own the party - the members have a massive stake in it, too.  As we get closer to the election there must be less and less debate and more focus on the need to get rid of Gordon Brown but with the policy review process still underway the internet provides the grassroots with more power than we have ever enjoyed.  We must use that power.

David Cameron and William Hague are holding a press conference this morning on Iran.  Sam Coates will be there for ConservativeHome and will be filing a report later.

Comments

[Traditional Tory]

To say that I have been semi-detached from my old party for three or four years would be an understatement.

Suddenly I feel the wind in my sails again. The last few days have proved that we the people really can win.

I think I'm going to get much more involved again and I have a feeling that an increased number of my colleagues are going to listen to what I have to say.

I urge those who have been wasting their time with UKIP to do likewise.

[TomTom]

Delusional is a word coupled with introspection which Cameron and Hilton might care to apply closer to home

[Daniel]

I agree with what David Cameron said,parents should choose school for the children not the school choose the children. one friend on EbonyFriends.com share my thought. because it is useful to children's education.

[Giles Marshall]

Delusional? Grammar school supporters? They are the ones who have hard evidence on their side - that when applied nationally, grammar schools proved the most socially mobile force of any educational system tried in this country. The idea that a recycled, and as yet wholly unproven, policy of city academies, coupled with the usual mantras about setting and streaming within schools, is the way forward is indeed delusional. And why is setting appropriate within schools, but not between them?

Cameron has chosen the wrong battleground to prove his modernist credentials, and the sad thing is that he has chosen to take on the one thriving, but besieged, part of the educational hemisphere to do it. I worked enthusiastically for my local Tory candidate in this educationally selective, Lib Dem held seat last time. This time? Not even sure I could bring myself to vote for them.

[Happy Tory]

Tim, you end your comments above with the statement, "We must use that power." I think there's a word missing. Any fool can use power. It should read, "We must use that power wisely."

We should not be wreckers, but work constructively to improve the outcome for the party and, ultimately, the country.

[Hug a PR Junkie]

David Cameron has got the Conservative Party a higher rating in the polls, and remember, it is winning that is important, not having the right policies. Isn't that why he was chosen to lead the Conservatives, with his experience of ... PR ?

[Scotty]

" Delusional is a word coupled with introspection which Cameron and Hilton might care to apply closer to home"
Delusional and introspection is something we would be better applying to Derek Conway listening to him this morning!
He is on the radio defending grammar schools in his area against his leadership who has to represent and provide for the education needs of all children throughout the country!!
The 160 odd grammar's schools that remain have been left in place by all governments but he has managed to make their case look even weaker when they were never the issue this week. Well done!

[Oberon Houston]

Getting back to the policy debate for a moment, Tim, James and Malcolm (or anyone with something sensible to add who is strongly pro-Grammar)...

Could you help me with the central argument of Willetts, i.e. that by the age of 11, the poorest kids are missing out with the grammar system. Is there a way of going around this, vouchers for primary age kids?

[John Coles]

I find it extraordinary that Mr Cameron should openly refer to a large swath of conservatives as 'delusional': he behaves like the Head Prefect knocking recalcitrant little fourth formers back into line.
This is not leadership and illustrates his tendency to crack under pressure.

[worcs tory]

As a Conservative Party member I am both distraught and extremely angry at the potentially election-losing mistake David Cameron is making over Grammar Schools.

This is going to split the party even more than Europe and he needs to pull back now and to express support for Grammar Schools, if we are to avoid disastrous schisms and significant fall off in traditional suport.

New Labour must be laughing their heads off at this self inflicted wound. Who started the all rolling? Oh yes Oliver Letwin, with his patsy David "No-brains" Willetts.

There's a lesson there for naive Mr Cameron.

Have people around you that you can trust, not who drop you in it (intentionally or unintentionally) time after time.

[John Coles]

Could we stop this Blairesque affectation of referring to "kids"?

[HF]

To have an effective party organisation and public image does require the Leadership to recognise that it has to bring the party with it and not pick unnecessary fights.

Alas the past week has shown that the Leadership does not understand that lesson.

The appearance of disunity cost us dear in the past. So why is the Leadership stoking the fires of disunity?

It is just driving the activists to seize control of the organs of the party. The last party that happened to was Labour in the days of Militant and that led to an even longer period out of office.

[Drusilla]

Once again, I struggle to understand how Cameron & Co acquired their reputation for smooth media handling.

Either (a) Cameron picked this grammar school fight as a 'Clause Four' moment intended to isolate and eject the extremists in his party - in which case, he should stop to wonder why 73 per cent of his own party is apparently 'extreme', as well as 'delusional' and all the rest - or, alternatively, (b) he didn't chose this row but still ended up with it, in which case he's ended up looking less than entirely competent.

Grammar schools don't bother me one way or the other, but when a Conservative leader discusses education primarily as a mechanism of social engineering rather than as, e.g., a way of teaching children to read and write and do sums, he's in danger of adopting the sort of thinking that has left state education in its current abysmal, perhaps irremediable state.

Finally, for anyone who caught the 'Today' broadcast (excellent interview with the Editor here, btw), one of the most memorable features was surely the (accidental, one assumes) constrast between the 'disgraced' Patrick Mercer MP, who was on earlier, and our current party leader.

Mercer was speaking on Iran's 'undeclared war' with British and American forces in Iraq. He came across as extremely well-informed, authoritative, confident, positive - very much capable of governing. One was left thinking that, whatever his past mistakes in terms of media handling, he certainly has a lot to contribute to Britain's future defence policy.

Compare this with Mr Cameron's interview, which, after some dismissive remarks about Conservative mainstream opinion, quickly got bogged down in dreary calculations about how many Old Etonians were in the Shadow Cabinet. Now, I don't actually care how many Old Etonians are in the shadow cabinet, or anywhere else for that mantter, but at the same time, I cannot believe that Cameron's performance would have made anyone in the world more likely to vote Conservative. By the end he sounded a bit rattled (referring to appointing a shadow cabinet after the next general election!), defensive, and most of all, contemptuous of much of his own party. This is, in other words, a mess - and no more attractive for being a wholly unnecessary one.

[Denis Cooper]

So the power of allocating a school place would be transferred 100% to the parents, and the school would have no power to choose which pupils it took -
or even how many. Now that really is "delusional". Here in Anytown there are three schools, one with a high reputation and two with poor reputations, and
all parents will have a free choice which school their children will attend?

[DavidDPB]

"Cameron has chosen the wrong battleground"

Given the policy on grammar schools was simply a reiteration of what Conservative policy has been for the last 30 years, I very much suspect that Cameron and his team are as surprised as anyone that this has turned into a 'battleground'.

I note in the Times today that activists are threatneing to leave the party over this. Which rather begs the question that if support for grammar schools was so important, why did they choose to join the party that got rid of most of them in the first place?

[Trevor]

Is it the case that most of the outrage amoungst the "Party grassroots" is confined to a few blogs?

I suspect the rest of the country is pretty indifference to grammar schools.

[Ross]

Cameron has little experience of having to struggle but those of us who struggled to get into grammar schools will not forgive his latest sell-out. Selection is natural and successful, only quashed by Sixties pinko progressives to prevent the production of good sound people who were always the backbone of Conservativism locally.

[Bill]

Whilst I wish your headline viz "The Tory grassroots have acquired a new confidence during the grammar schools row" were true, is that really the case. I don't see any basis for such confidence given what I see as the "management's" defiant attitude. I think the grassroots might feel more confident if they saw Cameron/Willetts et al blink. Did they?

[John Waine]

"it is winning that is important, not having the right policies"

Is this a serious statement or overly-subtle satire? What would be the point of a Conservative government that wasn't substantially different from the shambles we've had to endure for the past 10 years?

I, for one, hope fervently that this furore over grammar schools (a row that could have been avoided by simply leaving the subject alone) will prove to be the tipping point which convinces DC that he does need to have some regard for the "core" Tory voters after all. Then, maybe, we'll have a chance of going into the general election with sensible Conservative policies for the 21st century - rather than the "pale shadow of Blairism" that's been the norm since December 2005.

[Scotty]

"This is going to split the party even more than Europe and he needs to pull back now and to express support for Grammar Schools, if we are to avoid disastrous schisms and significant fall off in traditional suport."
No, factions within the party are as usual prepared to take the risk of splitting the party on a single issue which they feel strongly about, the fact that it is not an issue among the rest of the electorate or will benefit the majority never seems to matter to them.
You wonder why we still have less than 200 MP's, it might be to do with the fact that their obsession with these issues either turn people off or highlight how irrelevant the party is in some area's.
Radio 5 not very balanced with their Conservative guest list, but luckily the presenter and some of the guests are trying to give us a fair debate.

[worcs tory]

I think the Cammeroons posting on here and attempting to dismiss the significance of Grammar Schools to Conservative activists and voters have a hard lesson to learn and one which which could prove to be highly detrimental to our party.

This has been Cameron's worse week so far and it is destined to become a lot worse if he doesn't start behaving a lot more diplomatically to those of us within his own party.

The leftish/liberal/politically-correct/mutlti-culti rot has to stop now.

[David Matthews]

I went to a grammar school and my 2 sons also went to grammar schools, I am in favour of existing grammar schools being retained. Yes on average it was the brighter children who passed the tests and went to grammar school but the most important part was that in those schools streaming took place by subject rather than by the Form you were in. This allowed the children who were adept at a subject to be taught with others of similar ability and equally those not so good to be taught with those of a similar ability so were not just left behind. David Cameron is right in saying that even if grammer schools were the way forward, where is the funding to come from to open new grammar schools.He is right to say the way forward is for all senior schools to make streaming of students a routine process as the only practical way to improve the overall education standard for our children.

[DavidDPB]

I must say, that, on reading the headline to this thread, my immediate vision was the Labour party of the early 80s........

[John Waine]

DavidDPB ought to be aware that the reason why so many grammar schools were abolished under a Conservative government was that that government merely implemented LEAs' plans which had been drawn up as a result of the preceding Labour government's infamous Circular 10/66 (which demanded their abolition). LEAs which held out against that directive were able to retain their grammar schools.

[DavidDPB]

"attempting to dismiss the significance of Grammar Schools to Conservative activists"

All I can say if it is is of the extreme significance that is being ascribed to it, you have to ask the question as to why similar reactions have never manifested themselves in the last 30 years, and in particular in the 18 years of the last Conservative government. After all, then would have been the ideal time to have a pro-grammar school policy.

"and voters "

Interesting polls quoted are the end of the Times article today, both from ICM. One for the National Grammar School Association states that 70% are in favour of setting up new grammar schools, while one for the CPS staes that 58%would opt for a mixed ability school.

[malcolm]

As far as I can tell Oberon, the only criteria Willetts used to justify that statetement is the percentage of children eligible for free school meals. I'm not sure if that's a fair analogy as more than 85% of children are not eligible and the few remaining Grammar schools tend to be in leafy suburbs with a preponderantly middle class intake.
Generally speaking Primary Education in Britain is highly regarded in world terms and there as far as I'm aware few 'sink schools' at primary level so I'm not sure of the need for vouchers.
The other thing that is worth bearing in mind that it used to be possible to transfer to a Grammar after the age of 11. Many children were able to transfer at 13 so that late developers were also catered for. Grammar schools alo take on extra students in the 6th form.

[DavidDPB]

"DavidDPB ought to be aware that the reason why so many grammar schools were abolished under a Conservative government was that that government merely implemented LEAs' plans which had been drawn up as a result of the preceding Labour government's infamous Circular 10/66 (which demanded their abolition). LEAs which held out against that directive were able to retain their grammar schools."

No Parliament binds its succesors. The Conservative party could have stopped it if it had been sufficiently minded too. And of course, it subsequently had 18 years in power to reverse it........

[TomTom]

He is on the radio defending grammar schools in his area

Funny. I had always thought MPs were elected to represent a Constituency. I had not realised we now have the Party List system for Westminster Elections with the party having full control.

When did the constituency basis of Parliament disappear ?

[William MacDougall]

Cameron's choosing of less able candidates because of their gender and race and his campaign against grammar schools - and yes that is what it is - invited John Humphries’ pointed questions about the educational backgrounds of the Shadow Cabinet; once you target arbitrary “balance” in one area you invite it in others. The road he's taking with discriminatory policies within the party and permitting only wealthy children to go to selective schools (ie independents) is inviting electoral problems for the Party.

[TomTom]

The Conservative party could have stopped it if it had been sufficiently minded too.

Didn't they offer Assisted Places as a sop ?

[EtonTrifle]

The remarkable thing about this argument is that it has gifted Labour the chance to go on about the Old Etonians surrounding Cameron.
They were wary before.
Now its open season & listening to Cameron crumbling on the radio today it could be very very serious.

[giffin]

This has become an issue because of the poor process for policy making.

The Party continues with a process better suited to the TV era, where a cabal comes up with policies and announces them to what it hopes will be a greatful electorate.

The world has changed significantly in 10 years for politicians:
1. The Internet allows for engagement with a vast cross section of society over any issue.
2. The number of graduates has risen significantly and the better educated electorate is more sceptical.
3. The pattern of work has changed and most Service industries don't use the 'Command and Control' management style suited to mass manufacturing and the armed forces.

The effect can be seen in the complete failure of almost all IT projects in the public sector. Technical shortcomings are less of a factor than poor engagement with the user base in creating an agenda for change, building consensus for the solution, making sure the proposal fits local needs, and communicating effectively through development and deployment.

If the Party doesn't learn how to do this in Opposition, it will be condemned to follow the Labour party in failing to implement any meaningful change except breaking and banning things. If it can learn how to do this, it will be set for a long period in office.

[John Waine]

DavidDPB misses the point - the Heath gov't (specifically, Margaret Thatcher, as Sec'y of State) implemented plans drawn up by LEAs (who, presumably, made no attempt to withdraw them). That's local democracy at work. Would it have been right for the gov't to have overruled them?

[Mark Wadsworth]

Editor, well done on Radio 4, sounded very lucid and plausible, when did you have to get up? Like about 5 o'clock?

[Scotty]

"He is on the radio defending grammar schools in his area against his leadership who has to represent and provide for the education needs of all children throughout the country!!"

TomTom, the whole quote does make my point a little better!!!
I was also trying to highlight the fact that rather than achieving his aim he was instead weakening his case in this instance.
Do you disagree with the fact that having the words Labour, Libdem or Conservative beside the names of candidates in constituencies does make a difference to some people's voting intentions, or a high profile national campaign with a particular leader?

[mark]

"the current leadership doesn't own the party"

Correct, and they need reminding of the fact constantly.

[Graham Checker]

Cameron has, frankly, been very patronising and rude about members views on this.

Why?

Because, Hilton has told him to use it as his "clause 4" moment. No question about it. He'll deny it, but he knows it's what he's doing and it's perfectly f***ing obvious it's what he's doing to anyone with half-a-brain.

He was quoted as saying yesterday that this was a "test of his leadership". Clearly he is trying to mould the media coverage of the row into a clause-4 type comparison. Even Andrew Marr said has much..

Frankly, Steve Hilton is an overrated nincompoop. He is OBSESSED with the NuLab project in the mid-90s. He can't let it go. It's his bible. He's following NewLabours strategy manual; "The Project", line-by-line and hasn't the intelligence or ability to reinterpet, adapt, or learn the lessons (yes, both good AND bad Steve) to a different political party, facing different problems, in different times.

Hilton should be moved to the side. He is much too powerful where he is at the moment and is doing us great long-term damage.

[Christina]

Traditional Tory @ 09:04

"To say that I have been semi-detached from my old party for three or four years would be an understatement.

Suddenly I feel the wind in my sails again. The last few days have proved that we the people really can win.

I think I'm going to get much more involved again and I have a feeling that an increased number of my colleagues are going to listen to what I have to say.

I urge those who have been wasting their time with UKIP to do likewise."

Which part of the quote below don't you understand?

"Radio 4's John Humphrys asked David Cameron about ConservativeHome.com's finding that 73% of Tory members opposed the Tory policy on grammar schools. Mr Cameron said that he would not follow the party but lead it. "

Do you seriously think you can get rid of Cameron as your leader?

[David Bullingdon]

John Waine (09:43) - Winning the election is important, not having the right policies (or any policies,as now, for that matter). Once we have won, then we can decide policies. We could use the manifesto (horrible marxist word) written for the 2005 election, which after all was written by David Cameron. Policies are not important, winning is.

[Bruce Mackie]

The real problem is that the issue re Grammar schools was never up for debate until the Willetts speech and the spin doctors got hold of it. The Leader is taking a real gamble in the stance he is taking.To be a sucessful,a Leader must ensure that his troops follow on and support. What a Leader must not do is to fall out with his rank and file and dismiss their point of view as he has done and repeated so on the Today programme. It is time to take stock before this really gets more out of hand than it has already done. Listen to the people as they are willing to follow but not to be dictated to. We do not want this to go on any futher and perhaps the Leader should moderate his stance to accomodate the wishes of the Party members.

[whoareyoukidding?]

it was the Conservative Party who introduced GCSEs and the Children's Act which have had a catastrophic effect on education.

[Lucy]

Help! What has happened to the Daily Telegraph website? I can't start the day without Matt.

[Frank McGarry]

David Cameron is right. The grammar school debate is bound to be sterile - if he is determined not to listen to Conservative opinion. He says he is going to lead rather than listen. (Is he delusional, I wonder? Does he think he's Napoleon?)

Grammar schools, we are told, have the support of 49% of the electorate. In other words grammar schools are much more attractive to the voters than Cameron is.

[Christina]

"It's absolutely true that David Cameron is the leader of our party and deserves loyalty. But the current leadership doesn't own the party - the members have a massive stake in it, too."

I always thought that respect and trust should be earned rather than automatically granted. If Conservative members who have been labelled 'delusional' think Cameron deserves loyalty, I conclude they are suffering from a political version of Stockholm Syndrome. You're held captive so you're rationalising.

[uda]

IMHO David Cameron came across very well on Radio 4 this morning. He remained calm and managed to put his point very convincingly in the face of constant harassment and rudeness. I wish the readers of this blog would stop handing ammunition to Labour and the left-wing media who are able to taunt him that he may be willing to join the 21st century, but that his party is stuck in the 19th.

[realcon]

"it was the Conservative Party who introduced GCSEs and the Children's Act which have had a catastrophic effect on education."

It was also the Conservative Party that closed grammar schools wholesale, introduced the National Curriculum, set up the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, had exam boards competing for business, and started school qualifications inflation.

[Evan Price]

What I don't understand is why this is an issue ... there are fewer grammar schools left than private schools and a very small proportion of our children are educated in grammar schools. Grammar schools, with selection at 11, are not popular amongst parents that I know of 10 year-olds; who, with their children, are terrified of failure. The result is that many such parents I know prepare for that failure, scrimping and saving for private school fees etc and paying for additional tuition.

As Conservatives we need to have a policy that fits all our children's needs. The totemic Grammar Schools are something that for many in England & Wales have not existed for 40 years ... we need to have a policy for tomorrow, not a policy based on something that happened nearly 2 generations ago! In addition, grammar schools are not 'under attack'; the policy is to support existing schools, including grammar schools, that are successful and wanted by parents, but not to create new grammar schools.

Choosing policies that use the best ideas from grammar schools, mixing them with the best ideas from other state schools and even from the private sector and implementing them must be sensible.

Adopting the Academies, increasing the City Technology Colleges, and increasing selection within schools with streaming and setting is something that accords with my conservative principles. Retaining existing successful schools accords with my conservative principles. Creating a new raft of successful schools with freedom to act and select within themselves so enhancing the prospects of all children regardless of background is also something that accords with my conservative principles.

The fuss seems to misunderstand the policy and arguments on both sides appear to misrepresent what is being proposed and defended. We need to stop shouting at each other and start actually listening ... if we can't do that, the voters will not be prepared to accept that we are ready for Government and we will condemn ourselves to further periods in opposition. And in opposition we can say what we want; we will do nothing because we will have not power to do things!

[Denis Cooper]

"This has become an issue because of the poor process for policy making."

What, you mean the process whereby the party leader sets up a policy group, but before it has a chance to report he irrevocably decides the policy himself,
and then bad-mouths anybody who disagrees with him?

[Oberon Houston]

Malcolm, good to see someone is still keeping their eye on the policy here.

I think this all may come down to this central question:

Is it simply impossible to ensure a 'level playing field' where children from very poor backgrounds are concerned. i.e. its simply not possible to counteract the better up-bringing children from better income, more stable successful families. I believe it is impossible to make this happen universally without resorting to Socialist egalitarian values - a move no sane conservative would contemplate. But, is it possible to create an alternative schooling system to the Grammar model whereby those on the poverty line are not being disadvantaged by the system.

I would say you either:

1. Follow the Cameron-Willetts route and argue for more school places that offer better education.
2. Follow the Grammar model, but you need to address the learning gap much earlier, i.e. right from the word go, and accept that the system isn’t perfect but are willing to accept that the greater good is being addressed.

I think 1 could be made to work better than 2, but that’s my opinion. On the ‘politics’ side I think 1 will fit much closer to the aspirations of the electorate (ie an education policy that is seen to tackle the effects of poverty rather than one that is good, but has the unfortunate drawback of penalising the poorest in society.

[William Norton]

Evan Price: forgive me for saying so, but my guess would be that the reason this has become an issue is because a few people (perhaps sharing your approach) couldn't imagine how it could become an issue.

Irrespective of the merits one way or another of the various policies under discussion this issue has been handled badly because some people, for much the reasons you cite, thought the grammar school question had been 'settled' or was old hat.

It's possible, for instance, to make the perfectly valid point that there are few if any 'comprehensives' left in the country in the pure sense that the original comprehensive ideal was first floated (mixed ability classes, non-specialisation of subjects, socially-neutral intake etc etc). In practice nowadays we have lots of schools called comprehensives practicising a bastardised hybrid of the old secondary modern/grammar school approaches, the balance being driven pretty much by the mix of teachers they employ, and the views of their LEA, and in most towns one of them will be recognised as clearly 'the best' and that is to all intents and purposes the local grammar.

But you'll never convince any one that this is the case.

[John G]

I fought bloody hard in 1970 to defend Grammar Schools and the 11 plus. That was 37 years ago. The world has changed so for god's sake let us stop fighting yesterdays battles. Sadly David Cameron is absolutely correct in dropping old ideology the Party has done nothing about increasing Grammar Schools in the past 27 years, Cameron is being honest and forward thinking. He and he alone will win the next election for he has similar foresight to Margaret Thatcher.
If you want Gordon Brown to win the next General Election just continue fighting old battles and continue knocking our leader. By the way I am not a trendy left winger but an oap pragmatist

[tim]

Can I just say here that watching Camerons attempts to shaft Tory Grammar fans is nearly as much fun as watching Blair shaft Galloway/Benn et al in the mid 90s.
The difference is 73% vs 10%

[TomTOm]

SCotty, I have an excellent constituency MP...I would vote for him in whichever party he was. I don;t really care about the MP for Witney or the ones for Fife.

My MP is there to represent my interests

[Spencer Wisdom]

Editor, your comments with regard to the importance of the Conservative blogsphere brought to mind the words of Edmund Burke:

"Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that, of course, they are many in number, or that, after all, they are other than the little, shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome, insects of the hour."

Please remember that for every self proclaimed "voice of the grass roots" critic of Cameron who posts on your site their are thousands of ordinary party workers who quietly support their party and its leader and who would prefer all our energies to be concentrated on taking the battle to Labour.

[Michael McGowan]

Of course Cameron has been very patronising and rude. He is a condescending patrician who is born to rule. He isn't going to take dictation from jumped-up petit bourgeois who went to grammar schools and comprehensives.

Malcolm, less convinced than you are about primaries. My daughters went to a "good" state primary for three years and while I find it sad to say so, the results were very mixed. I think that vouchers are as necessary as ever to give all taxpayers the kind of choice open to those of us who are in a position to pay school fees.

Realcon at 10.40 is right to highlight the atrocious record of the Conservative Party on education. Given their capacity for cynically fouling things up over many decades, of course they did not support the grammar school system. That would have required them to show backbone, stand up to the left and support something that worked in a rough and ready way.

[barbara]

I resigned from the Conservative Party some months ago. The statement on grammar schools merely confirms the fact that I made the correct decision.
Many people in the party are sick and tired of the continual lurch to the left by David Cameron. There is now virtually no difference between Conservative and Labour. It would appear at times that there is some behind the scenes collusion taking place between Government and Opposition.

[Rebecca]

I can't get the Telegraph website either, Lucy. Surely David Cameron hasn't got rid of that as well?

[Brendan Harris]

The arguments put forward by David Willetts and David Cameron against grammar schools are illogical and inconsistent. They change depending on who is talking and what day of the week it is.

The essence of Willetts' argument, for example, was that grammar schools do little to help those who qualify for free school meals, ie. the poorest of the poor. That is undoubtedly true, but then why is this the relevant yardstick? Grammar schools don't solve global warming, cure AIDS or wash your whites at lower temperatures either, but they do a very good job of offering an excellent education to the academically able children of working families who cannot afford private education, which is what they were designed to do.

Never mind the poorest 20%, that group is at least 70% of the population, and the great benefit they derive from grammars cannot be tossed in the dustbin because of the lack of social progress of the nation's poorest. The problems inherent in that lowest quintile - drug addiction, alcoholism, broken families, abuse, poor English - cannot be solved by the secondary school system anyway, which is surely so obvious it hardly needs to be stated. It is almost comical to suggest that we should now re-shape all secondary schools to cater for the needs of those who qualify for free school meals.

Interestingly, Cameron's argument against grammars is not the same as Willetts'. Cameron's argument boils down to two theories. First, he tells us that support for grammar schools is a vote loser because 'parents don't want them'. I have not yet heard any evidence to support that assertion, and I strongly doubt Cameron has either. What I do know is that when Gloucestershire tried to abolish grammars recently there was a near public revolt and the council backed down. They are hugely popular in Kent, Bucks and Essex. Where does he get his opinion from?

Secondly, he argues, somewhat implausibly, that he has found a better way to provide an outstanding education for all, namely through solving the problems of bad behaviour, streaming within subjects and greater parental choice. So the best brains in our educational establishment have been trying to solve the problem of bad behaviour in schools for many years and failed, yet David Cameron has found the answer. Does he have a magic wand?

Cameron's theories about how to 'increase the supply of good school places' are just that - theories. Perhaps they will work, perhaps they won't, but unlike Cameron, Willetts and most of the shadow cabinet, many of us cannot or will not send our children to private schools. We actually have to live with the consequences of his tinkering, he doesn't. This is a West Lothian question all of its own.

The Cameron children, along with the Willetts children and the Johnson children, will all be safely ensconced in their private schools whilst millions of less privileged but able children will be sent to huge comprehensives where they will be bullied for being bright and studying hard.

If Cameron faced sending his children to the local comprehensive, Holland Park, where only 40% of the pupils achieve the basic 5 GCSEs with English and Maths, he would feel differently. That is exactly what faced my parents in 1972, but I was lucky enough to get one of the last places at Cardinal Vaughan Grammar School around the corner instead. I went on to read PPE at Oxford. I am one of hundreds of thousands of grammar school success stories and believe me David, the debate is anything but 'pointless' to us.

Many of us regard the failure to open new grammar schools as a blemish on Margaret Thatcher's otherwise brilliant 11 years in office. We should redress that next time round by offering every local authority the chance to have an open referendum on the issue and allowing those who wish to to open new grammar schools. To deny them the chance to do so runs completely contrary to Cameron's belief in local parent empowerment.

Cameron is wrong about grammar schools. They are a vote winner and we should be passionate advocates for them. They embody everything that is right with Conservatism and wrong with New Labour. They foster excellence and achievement, social mobility and a healthy parental involvement in the child's development. How can we be against such things and still call ourselves Conservatves?

[TimberWolf]

You mean like over the Freedom of Information Bill, Barbara?

[Bradford Lad]

If it's a case of Cameron or grammar schools, why don't we show a little political courage for once and insist that our leader heeds the strongly held views of the vast majority of the Conservative Party and its supporters on this issue, or step aside for someone more in tune with them?

[A Andrew]

We need a wider debate about education within the party and if Cameron, by announcing the grammar school issue, has started a debate it can only be a good thing. I am a product of a comprehensive and have not done too badly so far in life.

I am neither a great supporter nor huge critic of grammar schools but I will defend the right of parents to have a choice of education for their children and to give the next generation the best start in life.

Surely it is good that in the middle of a Labour Party Leadership (or at least deputy) campaign, Cameron is getting the headlines because he is talking about policy.

[A Andrew]

We need a wider debate about education within the party and if Cameron, by announcing the grammar school issue, has started a debate it can only be a good thing. I am a product of a comprehensive and have not done too badly so far in life.

I am neither a great supporter nor huge critic of grammar schools but I will defend the right of parents to have a choice of education for their children and to give the next generation the best start in life.

Surely it is good that in the middle of a Labour Party Leadership (or at least deputy) campaign, Cameron is getting the headlines because he is talking about policy.

[Torygirl]

All the Conservatives I know, mainly activists, are furious with Willetts and Cameron.

We had two excellent Grammar Schools in this area, one for boys and one for girls, my own children attended and got excellent 'A' levels and went on to University. We had a tremendous fight to try and save these schools, but in the end lost and now have a Comp. School. I don't think it is a sink school, but many of the brighter children now go to a sixth form college, instead of staying on to do 'A' levels.

Then to rub it in, they sold off the playing fields to build houses.

[simon]

If Cambo wanted a 'clause 4' moment- he should have picked housing. A Conservative actually promising to build council housing for families, and flats for single people on low incomes- ie)earning under 25,000 pa. But no, he picked an 'abstract' piece of education! priceless.

[John Reeks]

David Cameron is absolutely on the correct path with this grammars row; theres absolutely no way whatsoever a government would be able to roll out a nationwide grammars system without facing the most almighty opposition across the country and rolling over the will of local councils. Besides, the new policy is better anyway. Plenty of 'grammar streams' within schools gives kids the opportunity to receive the tuition they need subject-by-subject and year-by-year instead of being picked out at the arbitrary and ridiculous age of 11. Its just a far more realistic policy - end of. I can't honestly believe there is quite so much backwardness among the tory grassroots. Move on.

[William Norton]

John Reeks:I can't honestly believe there is quite so much backwardness among the tory grassroots.

Which, I suspect, is how the whole debacle started in the first place.

[Traditional Tory]

We need a wider debate about education within the party and if Cameron, by announcing the grammar school issue, has started a debate it can only be a good thing.

He started a debate all right, but it clearly wasn't what he intended.

Since he became party leader Cameron has repeatedly made it clear that he wants to close down debate in any area where the rank-and-file are likely to disagree with him. I don't recall much debate about whether the 'A list' should be introduced, for example.

The Cameron era has been one of unashamed control freakery, but coming from the self-proclaimed 'Heir to Blair' is that any surprise?

[Michael McGowan]

Brendan Harris' post is far more cogent than anything said by either of the Daves. The answer is Brendan's last question is oc course is that David Cameron is probably not a Conservative.

[Traditional Tory]

'Probably'???

[William Norton]

Michael McGowan:David Cameron is probably not a Conservative.

Congratulations, Michael. You win today's prize for the most sterile debating point.

[Harlequin.dane]

What a great pity that the opportunity appears to have been missed yet again, to look seriously at vouchers. If DC and co are serious about their idea that parents and pupils should be able to choose schools not schools choose pupils, what better way than a voucher led system. In Scotland where Labour eliminated our equivalent of the grammar school 40 years ago the only parental choice (except Jordanhill College in Glasgow which is by house purchase) is comprehensive or fee paying private sector. The loss of the assisted places scheme has now deprived a whole generation of bright working class kids that educational choice and opportunity. Clearly contributors such as Scotty are not themselves parents or grandparents or they would know that school choice / quality of education is uppermost in the minds of the parents and grandparents of today. In education there exists a huge opportunity to be radical by resisting the temptation to micro manage the system and instead be bold and adopt the macro approach which vouchers would promote. What we so desperately need in this country is a diversity of educational opportunity whether it be grammar, city academy, or private school. Instead of spending the 30% or more of the education budget on LA education directorates channel that money to the sharp end. Empower school boards and parents to make real choice, the engine of our education policy.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

We are not "delusional" and find that word extremely offensive. You may think we're wrong, but please consider your choice of words. An apology wouldn't go amiss...

[Traditional Tory]

Too true Justin. Let's hope 'Dave' reads your ringing demand.

Does this mean you've joined the guys in the white hats at last?

[Graham Checker]

Brendan 11:15

"Grammar schools don't solve global warming, cure AIDS or wash your whites at lower temperatures either.."

LOL!

Will 11:03

"It's possible, for instance, to make the perfectly valid point that there are few if any 'comprehensives' left in the country in the pure sense that the original comprehensive ideal was first floated (mixed ability classes, non-specialisation of subjects, socially-neutral intake etc etc). In practice nowadays we have lots of schools called comprehensives practicising a bastardised hybrid of the old secondary modern/grammar school approaches, the balance being driven pretty much by the mix of teachers they employ, and the views of their LEA, and in most towns one of them will be recognised as clearly 'the best' and that is to all intents and purposes the local grammar. "

Exactly - very well put.

[Michael McGowan]

William, there is nothing sterile about it. I simply note that David Cameron is using the Conservative Party as a springboard for his personal ambitions.....just as Tony Blair used the Labour Party over ten years ago. Presumably you don't think Blair believes most of the things the Labour Party is supposed to hold dear?

Excellent and sober assessment of the grammar school debate on Peter Hitchen's blog.

[Simon Chapman]

John Reeks: "theres absolutely no way whatsoever a government would be able to roll out a nationwide grammars system without facing the most almighty opposition across the country and rolling over the will of local councils."

Speaking for myself, and probably most of the pro-grammar camp, you are absolutely inaccurate in describing our position. A party committed to localism should leave it to local communities and councils to decide whether they want to develop new grammar schools in their area. I would like to see grammar schools and academies as part of the mix of options.

I cannot see why people who claim to be localists cannot understand this. I would like to see the leadership engage with this argument, rather than dismiss it as pointless.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Does this mean you've joined the guys in the white hats at last? No. I have always supported our grammar schools (see my long post yesterday).

[jorgen]

Good point, Michael McGowan!

[T]

Given that grammar schools are now so few in number and that bringing back grammar schools was ditched as a party policy long before Cameron, it seems more like a lot of people in the grassroots are the ones spoiling for a fight rather than the leadership.

[Angelo Basu]

"If Cameron faced sending his children to the local comprehensive, Holland Park, where only 40% of the pupils achieve the basic 5 GCSEs with English and Maths, he would feel differently."

Would he? In a school where the year group size is over 200, 40% still accounts for 80 or more of the pupils. In a well run school (and I don't know about that specific school) which has streaming by ability for individual subjects the top 2 or 3 sets will be entirely comprised of pupils expected to at least get grade C and potentially the very top sets will have a decent proportion expected to get the highest grades.

In this hypothetical situation what benefit would a grammar school provide to the children who were capable of getting into it who would at Holland Park be in those top couple of sets and therefore be capable of getting good grades there too? The difference would be felt amongst parents of children who would not get into the grammar school and who would then be in the worrying 60% at Holland Park who didn't get their 5 GCSEs but I don't see how having a grammar school would help those people. If Holland Park was well run and added value to those children entering who would not have got into a grammar school, they would at least have the opportunity to move into the higher sets. It is also worth noting that the former grammar school mentioned by Brendan still exists as a comprehensive which gets 91% of its students getting 5 A*-C GCSEs without selecting on ability (but presumably selecting to some extent on location, parents exercising choice and religion).

It is possible for non-selective schools to provide excellent education for the brightest pupils if they do the right things (eg having good discipline, attendance, streaming to prevent being held back by slower students, proper policies for excluding the disruptive- all policies Willetts stated in his speech) and this is something which I think Willetts and Cameron have recognised rather than insisting that the only way that we can do justice to the brightest is to take them out into specialist Grammar schools. The difficulty and the real issue for any Government and for the majority of parents and voters, in my opinion, is in catering for the improvement of the education of the others. However, it doesn't strike me as implausible that the very same things which would lead to good education for the best children in such a school would themselves lead to improved opportunities for all- being in an organised, supportive and disciplined school in sets which reflect ability will also be good for the lowest intelligence children. Having the ability to move up and be rewarded for your efforts, without having to transplant yourself away from your familiar environment to be a "late developer" joiner of a grammar school at 13 or 14 isn't a bad thing.

[Scotty]

"Clearly contributors such as Scotty are not themselves parents or grandparents or they would know that school choice / quality of education is uppermost in the minds of the parents and grandparents of today."
Yet again you make a sweeping statement on a subject and single out particular individual posters for personal attack for no other reason because they have dared to contradict your world view on other subjects. This type of unpleasantness adds nothing to a debate or this thread!
If you had bothered to read various threads on this site recently you will know that I have children going through secondary education just now in Scotland, I also have an autistic child and I have been fighting the appalling provision for special needs in Scotland for years!!!!!!

[Denis Cooper]

William Norton @ 11:03 has put his finger on two central points:

"... there are few if any 'comprehensives' left in the country in the pure sense
that the original comprehensive ideal was first floated (mixed ability classes,
non-specialisation of subjects, socially-neutral intake etc etc)."

Why? Because in practice that ideal didn't work, and eventually even its most ideologically driven advocates in the teaching profession and the educational establishment had to admit that it didn't work and quietly move away from it.

"... nowadays we have lots of schools called comprehensives practicising a bastardised hybrid of the old secondary modern/grammar school approaches,
the balance being driven pretty much by the mix of teachers they employ ..."

Precisely, and in any such school, on one site, with one head teacher, and one budget, all that can be hoped for is that there'll be the right teachers available for the more academically able and inclined pupils, and the right teachers available for the less academically able and inclined pupils, and that the school can be
run to make sure that every pupil is always in a class with the appropriate kind
of teacher - which rarely works out in practice.

The promise of a "grammar" or academic stream within every comprehensive school is a sop which some people may find acceptable, in nothing else for the sake of peace and quiet, but even if it could be achieved it would still be poor halfway house between the original ill-conceived comprehensive "ideal", and the much better system of having separate schools selecting their intake by ability and aptitude, with separate teaching staffs selected to bring the best out of the pupils in each school.

[Tim Williamson]

It isn't poverty or living in deprived areas which prevent pupils in those areas gaining grammar school access to the same extent as pupils in other, shall we say more comfortable, areas. For a start, those are the areas where you are most likely to find a high percentage of children whose first language in their homes isn't English. Schools in those areas aren't as likely to attract the same degree of parental scrutiny and, more than likely, the inclination to make grammar school applications isn't as developed. If the Tories really wanted to be a radical, we'd be discussing raising primary school standards in those areas so that more pupils would be applying -- successfully -- for more grammar school places. The system worked and promoted greater social mobility than we ever had before. This is a lapse of judgement by Cameron -- and unnecessary argument on a subject of which he has no experience and obviously doesn't understand his own party. Bad move.

[malcolm]

Oberon, I would agree with you if I thought that our plan to 'massively expand' City Academies was a good idea that would succeed in raising educational standards for a significant number of children. Sadly, I don't.

[giffin]

Down here in NW Hants, we have a choice of sending our brightest kids to the Grammar schools in Salisbury or the Comprehensives in Winchester. Each school has a critical mass (20+) of bright kids, which results from parents having confidence in the school.

Over the past five years, the balance has shifted to Winchester. The best schools there achieve equivalent results by maintaining discipline, "setting" by subject (i.e. an individual timetable for each child) and providing educational enrichment programs for their cadres of high ability children.

Given the choice between Grammar Schools and Grammar Streams, parents like me choose the option that gives the best results with the least stress on our children. (Nb I grew up in NI where I passed the 11+ and went to Grammar School and Uni, so I've no bias against selection).

There is, therefore, no question in my mind that the policy does work in some areas like ours, but does it apply in urban and rural settings? I'm very concerned about more 'one size fits all' prescriptions.

I think the debate needs to be localised - i.e. every Tory Council should be looking at how to apply the principles of Grammar Streams to their schools so we can see what variations will be required, and flesh out the criteria in an objective manner.

At the end of the day, there's an election to be won and the electorate is more amenable to examples than philosophy.

[CDM]

Did Cameron promise to open new grammar schools when he ran for leader?

[Tim Williamson]

I should have made it clearer. I was referring specifically to the ability of primary schools to prepare their pupils for secondary education. Clearly, if they fail to provide their pupils with adequate skills, grammar school education is never going to be an option. Don't blame the teachers -- they too are victims of an educational system which has been in decline for over 40 years.

[William Norton]

CDM: Did Cameron promise to open new grammar schools when he ran for leader?

No, that was Davis. I genuinely cannot recall what precise public response DC made to this Davis proposal, but from memory the general working assumption was that he wouldn't follow that course.

[Scotty]

"Over the past five years, the balance has shifted to Winchester. The best schools there achieve equivalent results by maintaining discipline, "setting" by subject (i.e. an individual timetable for each child) and providing educational enrichment programs for their cadres of high ability children."
Giffen, I think that your argument is valid and you will find that back in the 80's this system was followed in Scotland and was very effective. I don't have figures but I do remember in subjects like maths and science the results were good. I also think it worked even better in some rural area's where class sizes were smaller and allowed that bit more flexibility, that is maybe where we are losing out in some of today's larger urban schools simple through sheer size and teacher numbers?

[Oberon Houston]

Malcolm, I don't understand why you (and so many others) are set against the City Academy's - Labours half-baked toe in the water approach is poor, but the scheme can be much better under a Conservative govt?

[Happy Tory]

T @12.04 is right. This feels like a lot of people spoiling for a fight. And it all comes back to one thing. CHANGE IS HARD. And its particularly hard for the people who post regularly on this site.

[Anon]

Don't you all realise that by taking part in this public slanging match - sorry, that's what it is - all you are doing is playing into the hands of the opposition who can now shout 'Tory splits, Tory splits' from the rafters.

Stop and think for one moment why this announcement has been made as it has, using the wording that has been used.

[Spellchecker]

set against the City Academy's

maybe the word Academy and its plural is a good start Oberon....it is just an expensive way to buy more failure and mediocrity

[Jeremy]

Re Education Policy.
Get a grip guys. There seems to be a blimpish minority who hanker after an apparent golden age in a Bakelite Britain, when everything in the garden was rosy. In those days you sat an 11 plus and if you failed you were consigned to an educational dustbin.
David is so right. What we need now are good schools, no selction at 11 but selection within good schools via streaming. That way everyone has the opportunity irrespective of background, and irrespective of how "pushy" their parents are.
Go for it David, it's about time people realised that you are a winner, or isn't 900 extra seats in the recent local electiosn enough proof.

[Oberon Houston]

Good point. I went to a rubbish schoolies.

[TomTom]

Comprehensives in Winchester

You mean this one ?

Winchester Comprehensive

[Opinicus]

@Anon
You get the prize for the most sinister post on this blog
The reason why the announcement was made as it was with the words that were used is precisely what we are all trying to grasp. By dragging in grammar schools to a debate about academic rigour and setting in all schools, Willets has made his current headlines, either by incompetence or deliberately. I am not sure which is worse.

[malcolm]

Why Oberon? Because I believe their admissions policy (10% of people can be chosen by aptitude not ability in a few arbitary subjects) is a stupid gimmick, some City Academies despite the money lavished upon them are delivering lamentable results, they are mostly too big (most over 1,000 pupils) and the fact that they are not controlled by an LEA is fairly irrelevant to their being able to provide a good education for children.

[Phil Whittington]

"Let me make it clear: this grammar school boy will take no lessons from that public school boy on the importance of children from less privileged backgrounds gaining access to university."

Hansard 3 Dec 2003 : Column 498

[Marcus Wood]

So entrenched have some political activists become that they see politics as a war, but the public don’t; they just want to see our country run properly.

Everybody knows that on some issues party politics - the adversarial system- has become pointless and in some cases damaging, education is one such area.

There are only 160 or so grammar schools left against over 3,000 secondary schools. The Conservatives haven't introduced new Grammar Schools in 18 years in Government and nobody has seriously imagined that we had any plans to roll out Grammar Schools across the UK.

I believe that everyone has talent somewhere. The job of a good education system is to find that talent and make the best of it. That could and should include artistic ability, sporting ability, mechanical aptitude, and any other number of abilities that thousands of children have but which is not valued or honed by the old system , and isn't happening under the comprehensive system either.

City academies are encouraged to specialise and accordingly they can select up to 10% of their pupils by ability from outside their ‘normal’ catchment who have notable talent in their speciality.

In additon, proper subject streaming by ability and restoring effective and worthwile discipline will do far more to help most children than any amount of posturing over the return of an old system rejected by all parties and the vast majority of parents and teachers 40 years ago.