Brady: Tories are picking a fight with ordinary working families

Graham Brady MP has written another article on grammar schools - this time for Britain's best-selling newspaper - the former perch of Andy Coulson, the News of the World.  Here are two key sections from Mr Brady's article:

"Last week I was told if I wanted to keep my job I had better shut up about education.  But I decided it was more important to tell the truth about something I passionately believe in.  The Chief Whip was instructed by David Cameron to bring me into line. He was blunt, to put it mildly.  This was followed by heavy-handed briefings against me in the next morning's paper from the leader's office."

"This is not just an internal Tory row. By undermining grammar schools, Shadow Education Secretary David Willetts has set off a row with millions of ordinary working families. People are frustrated by a political establishment that talks about choice but won't let them choose a grammar school.  Now, in the face of gathering dissent over Mr Cameron's original plan to build no more grammars, Central Office has changed its stance again.  The message now is that, because selection works, areas with grammar schools already can have MORE—but if you haven't got one then tough!  This shows how badly thought-out the policy was in the first place."

Greg Clark MP is the latest frontbencher to wade into the row.  The Kent MP adopts the Dominic Grieve line by saying that he supports more grammar schools if his county of Kent, which retained the grammar school system, needs them for demographic reasons.  Greg has contacted me to say that he agreed the statement used by The Sunday Telegraph with David Willetts ten days ago.  It was first issued to his local newspaper: "In Kent, where we have grammar schools, I think we should keep the system we have.  That means if the need arises for new schools in Kent, say because of population growth, I would certainly argue that new grammar schools should continue to be part of a mix of new schools, as they are part of the mix of existing schools."

David Cameron will be jetting back from his holiday in Crete today.  It will be interesting to see if he can find a strategy to soothe a row that is about to enter its third week.  He will be reassured by today's ICM survey, however, which suggests a 37% to 32% Tory lead.

Comments

[Bradford]

Cameron is clearly irrelevant to the disastrous educational provision in Bradford. There is no reason to vote Conservative because a Conservative-Liberal Council runs a failing schools system through Serco and Labour is an even bigger catastrophe.

There are no Grammar Schools - just failied comprehensives as far as the eye can see with high levels of violence and absenteeism

Bradford was once one of the innovative authorities in the country now it is a giant slum. It once had State Grammar schools with Nobel Prize Winners but not now.

Education is not an engine of growth here simply a pool of stagnation and it will require ever-increasing levels of public spending to keep public sector employment available to the illiterates turned out by failed schools belong Haringey and Tower Hamlets.

Cameron recites the 1997 Blair Mantra Standards not Structures and invites the voters to repeat the personal odyssey of learning that the past decade has involved - but children cannot be destroyed like laboratory rats when things don't work out - we are stuck with the consequences for 60 years or more.

It is clear that vast areas of this country will be abandoned by the middle class who wish their children to be imbued with a cultural and academic tradition - whether they migrate internally or externally is not yet clear - but we are fighting Culture Wars in this country and the Conservative Party has ranged itself alongside Labour and LibDems as the Party of The Social Elitists and Nomenklatura trying to social engineer other people's flesh and blood while buying privilege for their own to become a self-erpetuating elite like Plato's Guardians......they even name their vehicle - The Academy - after Plato

[Tory T]

Tim thank you for that update, it is very significant

"Greg has contacted me to say that he agreed the statement used by The Sunday Telegraph with David Willetts ten days ago. It was first issued to his local newspaper: "In Kent, where we have grammar schools, I think we should keep the system we have. That means if the need arises for new schools in Kent, say because of population growth, I would certainly argue that new grammar schools should continue to be part of a mix of new schools, as they are part of the mix of existing schools."

That really is important - it means that neither Clark nor Grieve went against party policy which is what CCHQ were saying. Grammars safe with us, preserve the status quo, but countrywide look to grammar streaming in every subject in every school and the other traditional reforms, so that selection is within and not between schools.

[ACT]

'Tory T', if you want to keep insisting, "there was no change of policy, Dave has never changed policy, he will NEVER bend", go right ahead, but it's fanatical denials of reality like this that tends to have your posts set at a discount.

[Bradford]

but countrywide look to grammar streaming in every subject in every school

Do we have any other hallucinogenic fantasies ?...This is how the Comprehensives started out 40 years ago !

[TomTom]

Now Tory T these comments are from a teachers' Website explaining objections to any policy of streaming in comprehensives.....how will you overcome resistance of teachers to your Cameron policy ?

Arguments against selection, streaming and banding

1. Setting is only easier for teachers but has no measurable, provable benefit for students at either end.
2. Teacher “labels” become self fulfilling prophecies. Top sets are expected to perform better and do, bottom sets are expected to perform badly and often to behave badly and do so.
3. There is a predominance of working class children in bottom sets and non-selective schools who therefore do not can access to “higher” academic knowledge and skills. Selection, streaming, banding and setting therefore perpetuate the existing class structure and limit the opportunities of working class children
4. Equal opportunities issues (see point 3)
5. Teacher’s low expectations of bottom sets and secondary modern pupils result in less preparation and effort on the part of the teacher.
6. Mixed ability groups in comprehensive schools are important in the social development of children and the progressive development of society
7. IQ testing is outmoded and discredited and a totally unfair way to determine a child’s future and prospects
8. Selection and streaming is deeply damaging to a child’s self esteem

[Denis Cooper]

"grammar streaming in every subject" sounds good, but it's just a sop, and a sop which usually would be ineffective and at worst would be unworkable, I'm afraid.

And it does rather remind me of Harold Wilson's claim that the comprehensive system would mean "a grammar school education for all".

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

A very interesting and comprehensive list from TomTom regarding the obstacles faced by Cameron and the "streaming" policy.

I recall speaking with a former Headmaster of a school in one of the London Boroughs which, during his time, implemented streaming. He was adamant that, whilst streaming did help someway, the 'Grammar' stream - and the more academically able - were still grossly let down by the fact that all the resources (including teachers) in one school had to be shared between those who wanted to learn, and those who didn't.

He said that he could visibly see teachers, who were expected to provide the 'Grammar stream' education to those in the top sets, being daily worn down by the greatly varying needs put on them by pupils of such differing academic abilities and requirements. As a result, the teachers were over-stretched and certainly were never able to provide the sort of education envisaged when the system was set-up.

He knew that the streaming system employed was no effective replacement for grammar schools - where the school and resources available can be targetted to provide for the needs and abilities of the pupils.

Cameron is entirely wrong. It's not that there's too much selection - there is far too little. Grammar schools are just one tool of a wide-ranging selection which should be employed.

Whilst the Tory leadership keep up this anti-Conservative, anti-aspirational, anti-opportunity (at least for the working and lower-middle classes) line, there's no incentive for so many conservative minded people to vote for them. With this mornings '5 point lead', they aren't going to get anywhere near Downing Street.

The (anti-)Conservative Party policy isn't working !

[tapestry]

washing our dirty linnen in public is not totally a bad idea. people haven't seen an MP taking on a party leader and winning for decades. It's actually very interesting and refreshing.

Brady has seen what's obviously nonsense about the grammar school policy, and he has rightly made his stand on that.

But he hasn't seen how to place Cameron in a good position, or fend off potential enemies for him. It's good to give your opponent an escape route when you've beaten them - especially if that's your party leader. AFter all, who will be implementing any policy once it's all been thrashed out?

Cameron will have to accept that he's failed in his attempt at a 'Clause 4' with grammar game, and that education policy is becoming the business of the Parliamentary Party as a whole. In fact he's had a Clause 4 in reverse. He tried to ape the Blair system of controlling all policy from the top, with media support sewn up. People are sick of it. Cameron's experienced the opposite - the policy he was trying to ram through has unravelled before his eyes.

It's actually a credit to Cameron and the Conservatives that his MP's feel they can speak out without being dstroyed as they would be inside Labour. Brady need not accuse Cameron so much while making his point. Cameron's an intelligent and sensitive persona, and while he's surrounded himself with a few ne'er do wells like William Hague, he is still a good leader. Cameron will ultimately build a better team, but he needs to go through a bit of fire to see that Hague isn't much use when it comes down to it.

Brady should congratulate Cameron on promoting so many new policy ideas in his Policy Review departments, or something, and present the COnservatives as the Party willing to discuss things, and look for the best solutions as a Party, and not allow a control freak to dominate all discussions. In a way, he could lead the process of stopping the media/control freakery of the Blair years and be more gracious. That would establish him as a major figure. Maybe he'll change his tune a bit, but all credit to him for putting up such a good fight and winning.

Now he needs to realise he's won, and give Cameron a route to move forward.

[gingeral]

Brady needs to shut up now, he's costing his party valuable votes by keeping the issue alive.

[Michael Hewlett]

I agree with the last post. Brady is obviously bitter at his teatment but should put the interests of the party before
his own and pursue a dignified silence on the backbenchers.

[Jonathan M. Scott]

Graham Brady is absolutely right in what he is doing - he is arguing the case for grammar schools as excellent educational institutions which help social mobility. (as I should know, having gone to one in Northern Ireland.)

The party policy on grammar schools is absolutely wrong - that is what is costing votes. It is the result of out-of-touch MPs such as Willetts who should try spending some time out of Westminster and see what the real world is (especially in somewhere like Greater Manchester where Graham Brady is the only Conservative MP and in fact one of few in the North West).

Hopefully, (i) Willetts will be replaced in the next reshuffle by someone more capable of the education brief, and (ii) The party will end its war on grammar schools and selective education.

Only then will the Conservative Party look as if it can seriously win the next election.

[Og]

Tory T is no longer to be taken seriously.

If there is to be a "winner" of this mess, it won't be Cameron or Willetts. Common sense might be the winner if CCHQ decide not to pre-empt the policy reviews (and if people like Coulson can stress-test the new policies before they see the light of day).

Brady comes out of it quite well, I think. He hasn't flounced around like a Heseltine or bitched like a Heath; he's using a completely logical argument, and backing it up with facts. If Cameron is writing about "power to the people" in the Sunday Times today, he'd better be able to back it up with provision of the type of school there is local demand for, including grammars. He cannot say that this was what he meant all along, as the absurd Tory T implies.

[Denis Cooper]

I note that the teachers' website states:

"7. IQ testing is outmoded and discredited and a totally unfair way to determine
a child’s future and prospects"

Taking the first part, "IQ testing is outmoded and discredited", that in itself is a very old-fashioned, mainly unreconstructed left-wing, view. As far as I see from what's on the internet, it's clearly recognised that IQ testing has its limitations, and research into its value in different contexts continues, but it is certainly not "outmoded and discredited" in academic circles.

Taking the second part, "a totally unfair way to determine a child’s future and prospects", this is of course where politics takes over education. Some people
do see it as "unfair" that one person is very much brighter (or more attractive,
or more athletic) than another, and can't stop themselves reacting against that - and to validate their emotional response they will either go into complete denial about the significant differences between individuals, and/or they will clutch at the theoretical straw that any differences are entirely the result of nurture, not nature, and simply reflect "social inequalities", or lack of "social justice".

Even so, it's self-evident to any reasonable person that a single measurement of IQ cannot and should not be the sole factor taken into account "to determine a child’s future and prospects", especially since a child can be trained to get a higher score in the standard test - provided the resources to train him are made available, which is more likely to be the case in better off families

[TomTom]

Brady needs to shut up now, he's costing his party valuable votes by keeping the issue alive.

Posted by: gingeral | June 03, 2007 at 10:46

Fascinating.

The Conservative Party cannot debate an issue without telling people to fall into line and shut up now yet this Party wants then to have a policy which sets in on course for battles in every school in England as the teaching unions come out in opposition to streaming within schools.

They will no doubt be told by a putative Conservative Government and fall into line behind The Leader.

Somehow I think this is only credible to coke-heads and dope-heads.....

http://www.teachers.tv/video/5088

[TomTom]

So Conservative Policy is to return to the past and retrace the stages of the failed comprehensive experiment

As late as 1970, 70% of secondary schools were still using some form of banding, streaming or setting for first year pupils.

But mixed ability teaching was already becoming more popular with teachers. The Plowden Report of 1967, which cast doubt on the accuracy of selection at age 11, had encouraged this trend.

By the mid-1970s, a study by schools inspectors found that 35% of schools used mixed ability teaching "in most subjects" in the first year. Of course, mixed ability teaching levels are more likely to be highest in the first year, which many secondary schools regard as a transition phase from pupils coming up from primary schools.

By the early 1990s, a survey by authors of a study of comprehensive schools (Benn and Chitty) found that just over half of all schools were using mixed ability groups in all subjects in the first year. A further quarter used mixed ability combined with setting in no more than two subjects.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1170241.stm

[Richard]

Not everybody is suitable for an academic education, somebody has to do the manual work and if the secondary moderns could become technical schools there would probably be less stigma surounding them. Forcing comprehensive education on everybody just because some parents can't accept the fact that their children aren't geniuses is just spiteful.

[TomTom]

Same BBC article continues

In the early 1990s, Professor Eric Bolton, the former senior chief inspector of schools in England, said few teachers could do it effectively.

He believed that "most teachers aim for the middle: The bright children are frustrated and the ones at the bottom get left behind".

The latest picture is given by this year's annual report of the chief inspector of schools which says "almost all" secondary schools set or band pupils by ability.

The extent of setting varies greatly from subject to subject. Three-quarters of maths lessons observed by inspectors used ability sets and it was used in well over half of all lessons in science and foreign languages.

After that, setting falls away sharply for other subjects - for example English (42%), geography (31%) and information technology (19%). Very few PE, art or music lessons involved setting.

Anyone seeking definitive advice on which method is best will, I fear, be disappointed by the chief inspector's conclusion that "there is no clear statistical link between the extent of setting in schools and the attainment of pupils".

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

This mess is down to two people: Cameron and No Brains. Full stop. If the policy hasn't changed (as they claim), why make a speech about it? And if the policy has changed (which I think it has), why mention it during the week that Broon is confirmed as Labour next leader, inter-alia, PM? Why pick a fight with thousands of loyal and hard-working Conservative members and supporters when the GE could be called for, say, October? DC went to Eton, and NB sends his kids t private schools - yet they want to deny good education to ordinary kids. The Comps don't work - never have, never will do. If they did, NB would send his kids to them.

And so much for choice, decentralisation and localism. Parents can determine what schools they want to set up - as long as they are comprehensives or academies. Call that choice and localism? Bull shit!

[Torygirl]

The more I see of Graham Brady the more I like him. He is putting the views of his Constituents before that of the Party. If more MPs did that, we might have a Party worth voting for. But all we get is the "I know better than you what is good for you".

What is the point of voting for someone who will ditch his principles once he has been elected. Too many of them do that and it is no wonder that 40% of the electorate don't bother to vote.

[Henry Mayhew]

A great CH thread. Heartrending stuff from Bradford with the superb comment about Plato's academies. Also, brilliant info from TomTom on what has happened and probably will happen to setting within non-selective schools.

Mr Cameron has been, let us say, a little arrogant in his approach to and handling of this issue, but now has the chance to make amends with everyone watching. There is a really good opportunity to develop a sensible education policy around vouchers, plurality of school types and ownership, and selection.

Let's get to work.

Well done CH once again. Great stuff. Off to the garden.

[Traditional Tory]

'Tory T', if you want to keep insisting, "there was no change of policy, Dave has never changed policy

It's a sad case of 'denial'. I'm worried about him this morning. He's posting like a dingbat on speed.

I'm afraid the events of the past three weeks have taken their toll.

And his claim that the 'T' stands for 'Thatcherite' appears to be what the professionals term 'transference'

Clearly it's time I renamed myself 'Cameroon Tory'

[Denis Cooper]

I must admit that until now I've never thought in detail about what it means to have a "mixed ability" class. I knew that at age 8 my son could do his sister's maths homework with ease, when she was 11 and in Year 7 at the local comprehensive, and of course I realised that since he's gone there he's been getting increasingly frustrated, even with sets. But I'd never sat down and worked out some figures.

So here are some rough and ready numbers for a Year 9 (was used to be called Third Form) class if it's statistically representative of the population of children:

At the beginning of the school year the chronological ages of the class will range from 13 to 14, average 13.5 years.

However in terms of mental or intellectual age the spread will be very much wider.

The average will still be 13.5, but only half the class will be in the range 12 - 15.

A quarter of the class will have intellectual ages below 12, and one in twenty will have an intellectual age of 10 or below.

Similarly a quarter of the class will have an intellectual ages above 15, and one in twenty will have an intellectual age of 17 or above.

So at the bottom end there'll be one or two children who would be average if they
were in the top year of primary school, while at the top there'll be one or two who in principle could already cope with A-level work, before the average child in the class was even ready to start working for his GCSE's.

It would take an exceptional teacher to do justice to such a wide ability range.

[Tory parent]

Cameron is right in his judgement. I went to grammar school - one of four in a class of 30+ in the 1960s. However, I was very pleased that my children were not pigeon-holed at 11 years into academic or non-academic categories. Nor were decisions made at that early age affecting the rest of their lives. We need 40-45% of the voters to support us to win an election. They will not support a party wanting to bring back selection at 11.
Ignore the few areas which still have a selective system. Good for them if that is what they want. Here in Hampshire such a policy would be a disaster. We have four LibDem seats to win. I can see the propaganda now: Vote Conservative and Vote for the 11+ Exam.
We need to devise policies which stretch the bright and also help children whose parents, for whatever reason, cannot 'play the system' to secure places in good schools. I do not know what these policies will be. I am sure, however, that grammar schools are not the answer.

[Torygirl]

Denis is right. I remember someone once saying that if all the children sat down and faced the front of the class, they might learn more. Teachers dashing round the classroom from table to table like demented hens does not help.

I recently visited some Prep Schools to help choose one for my 7 year old grandson. Most of the children were seated facing the "white board" and teacher. Perhaps it is time for primary/junior schools to go back to a more traditional approach to whole class teaching.

My sister-in-law became a teacher in a Comp she was teaching temporarily in a remedial class of 15 year olds. They were very disruptive and when she complained, she was told not to worry, most of them didn't want to learn so don't bother trying to teach them. After half a term, the Doctor told her that she should quit as she was heading for a breakdown.

She did her best. She tried to get them interested, she confiscated something from one boy, who threatened her and stole her handbag, refusing to give it back until she had returned the article she had confiscated.

One day she got them all writing essays, and to encourage them, gave them marks well above what they deserved. One lad got a B+ and was told "Well done for trying". He became her champion. Whenever any of the class became disruptive he would say "Sit down, shut up and do what Miss says".

It would never have happened in the old days. When I was at Junior School, many moons ago, we had boys from the local orphanage in my class, but they could all read, write and add up by the time they left and went on to secondary schools.

[Cynical Voter]

I do not know what these policies will be. I am sure, however, that grammar schools are not the answer.

So that is what is supposed to attract voters is it ? We have no policy other than to ban selective education.

Fascinating. Now let's see these policies that are supposed to make us want to vote for your team....you have already given us the reason not to vote for you and abstain

[Richard]

"They will not support a party wanting to bring back selection at 11."

Do all of them believe that their children are capable of being top of the class then? Do none think that a vocational education might be more suitable?

[Denis Cooper]

Another way of looking at this thorny problem of "mixed ability" classes.

How could one assemble children of different chronological ages, each of whom is intellectually average for his chronological age, to construct an intellectual age distribution similar to that of a typical Year 9 class in a comprehensive school?

Very roughly, it might look something like this:

1 average 9-year-old
2 average 10-year-olds
3 average 11-year-olds
4 average 12-year-olds
6 average 13-year-olds
6 average 14-year-olds
4 average 15-year-olds
3 average 16-year-olds
2 average 17-year-olds
1 average 18-year-old

Perhaps there could be an alternative model for a school, in which year groups comprised children of the same intellectual age, rather than chronological age?

[Curly]

I have read through all of these comments and yet not one of them espouses that central theme to Tory thinking "freedom of choice", in this case the freedom of parents to choose a variety of educational system that suits their local area. I think that Graham Brady is perfectly right to highlight the case for grammar schools, and if his electorate (or any other) wish to choose the selective system, then government should stand aside and allow them that choice.

[James Maskell]

As Portillo points out today, the Willetts speech which kicked off the whole fuss had a good point to make regarding vouchers. Willetts argued that vouchers were good and would benefit parents. If they are so good, then why have they been rejected by Cameron?

[spagbob]

why oh why does this guy have to keep fuelling the debate, hasnt he seen the damage it is doing to the party? please mr brady, we know you support grammar schools and the arguments why, but for the sake of the future of the party, please stop this damage to the party.

[Peter]

The Cameroons need to learn that intelligient people do not like being looked down on, patronised, patted on the head and told what to do. They need to understand that many of us are far more intelligient than them and have to do much more in our day jobs and for much less pay.

Then, when they understand that, and stop pretending themselves the next set of ruling class in this country, they may implement policies which give power away to professionals, parents and local people. It is our tax money they are spending.

[Peter]

The Cameroons need to learn that intelligient people do not like being looked down on, patronised, patted on the head and told what to do. They need to understand that many of us are far more intelligient than them and have to do much more in our day jobs and for much less pay.

Then, when they understand that, and stop pretending themselves the next set of ruling class in this country, they may implement policies which give power away to professionals, parents and local people. It is our tax money they are spending.

[Peter]

The Cameroons need to learn that intelligient people do not like being looked down on, patronised, patted on the head and told what to do. They need to understand that many of us are far more intelligient than them and have to do much more in our day jobs and for much less pay.

Then, when they understand that, and stop pretending themselves the next set of ruling class in this country, they may implement policies which give power away to professionals, parents and local people. It is our tax money they are spending.

[Peter]

The Cameroons need to learn that intelligient people do not like being looked down on, patronised, patted on the head and told what to do. They need to understand that many of us are far more intelligient than them and have to do much more in our day jobs and for much less pay.

Then, when they understand that, and stop pretending themselves the next set of ruling class in this country, they may implement policies which give power away to professionals, parents and local people. It is our tax money they are spending.

[Cynical Voter]

Posted by: Peter | June 03, 2007 at 14:34
Posted by: Peter | June 03, 2007 at 14:35

Well worth repeating...and so very true !

[Traditional Tory]

why oh why does this guy have to keep fuelling the debate

Because he speaks for us - the grassroots Conservatives.

We're happy to debate the issues with the Cameron clique but not to be steamrollered.

It's called democracy, Spagbob.

[Traditional Tory]

Cameron is right in his judgement. I went to grammar school - one of four in a class of 30+ in the 1960s

One of four what?

[Derek]

Local choice is the answer. Education policy should be given to the LEA's.

[Richard]

"Local choice is the answer. Education policy should be given to the LEA's."

Even better, give schools total independence.

[economic armagordon]

Time for gormless loooking Brady to shut his mouth, and time for the Tories to stop the infighting and start attacking our new unelected Prime Minister and the over indebted , underproductive shambles he has made of our economy.

[TomTom]

Time for gormless loooking Brady to shut his mouth, and time for the Tories to stop the infighting and start attacking our new unelected Prime Minister and the over indebted , underproductive shambles he has made of our economy.

Posted by: economic armagordon | June 03, 2007 at 16:07

That comment has been posted word-for-word before......go away and write something fresh and original....or ask your teacher to copy something for you

[economic armagordon]

That comment has been posted word-for-word before.....
Posted by: TomTom

You are a LIAR. It certainly has not been posted word for word before. Try to be more truthful in future though I realise you may find that difficult.

[Editor]

I will take action if the personalisation of attacks continues...

[economic armagordon]

Fair enough Ed, but it is bloody annoying to see people deliberately trying to spread infighting within the party when we should be concentrating on attacking unelected PM Brown and the grave damage he is inflicting on our country.

[TomTom]

It certainly has not been posted word for word before.

You err. I have read it before

[TomTom]

unelected PM Brown

John Major became Prime Minister in 1990 and faced election in 1992, and won. He was elected as an MP just like Gordon Brown, and succeeded his predecessor in 1990 just as Gordon Brown succeeds his predecessor in 2007.

The constitutional position is simply that we elect MPs and The House of Commons determines who is Prime Minister if he can command a majority.

No Prime Minister has ever been elected by the electorate

[economic armagordon]

It certainly has not been posted word for word before.

You err. I have read it before
Posted by: TomTom

Prove it, post the link.

[economic armagordon]

The constitutional position is simply that we elect MPs and The House of Commons determines who is Prime Minister if he can command a majority.
No Prime Minister has ever been elected by the electorate
Posted by: TomTom

That statement is crass/obtuse/naive on so many levels that it hardly warrants this reply.

[Traditional Tory]

economic armagordon really is a tedious troll. I prefer to believe Tom Tom.

I wonder what ID he was previously using before he came up with this hamfisted attempt at humour?

[economic armagordon]

I wonder what ID he was previously using before he came up with this hamfisted attempt at humour?
Posted by: Traditional Tory |

Another wrecker who prefers infighting to opposing New Labour crawls out of the woodwork. Calling me a troll, is that your hamfisted attempt at irony?

[Denis Cooper]

Last week I came across some information about the complex funding formula which was used under the tripartite system, which meant that the secondary moderns were always severely underfunded - not even funded on an equal per capita basis, when one might suppose that it would be cheaper and easier to educate the brighter children in the grammar schools than pull up the less bright children in secondary moderns, and therefore the latter should have received a higher per capita allocation. I can't find that now, but I've happened on this article in the New Statesman from 1999 - the interest lies in the extent to which Willetts and Cameron have taken on board the arguments of the left without any critical analysis, and without thinking that what was a problem fifty years ago need not always be a problem. For example, the government could decide that schools which were allowed to select pupils on the basis of their high academic ability and/or aptitude would need and therefore would receive LOWER per capita funding than non-selective schools. And once again notice how this article and Willetts both fail to realise that if poor children tend to fall behind middle class children BEFORE the age of 11, then the solution to that problem must be to help the poorer children BEFORE the age of 11 - not to deliberately hold back
all the brighter children, rich and poor, AFTER the age of 11.

http://www.newstatesman.com/199909060001

QUOTE

How to scrap grammar schools

Published 06 September 1999

If Anthony Crosland had never tried to carry out his famous (and obscenely expressed) threat to close every grammar school in England, it is likely that 11-plus selection would have quietly passed away long ago. In the 1960s the arguments against grammar schools seemed overwhelming and they were increasingly evident to parents. It was becoming widely accepted, even by those sympathetic to elitism, that 11 was just too early an age at which to consign three-quarters of the nation's children to the academic dustbin and that vast quantities of talent, mostly working class, was going to waste. What was most startling was the evidence that secondary modern schools actually depressed children's IQ, so that their charges came out stupider than when they went in. Many of the local councils that pioneered comprehensives were Tory-controlled, such as Leicestershire and Hertfordshire. Indeed, most of the early pressure for comprehensives came from the middle classes, who could not bear the idea that any of their children might fail. The issue was not hugely controversial in the party political sense. Crosland made it so, putting the grammar schools at the top of his agenda and seeming to pit a dictatorial Whitehall against the town and county halls.

Today the arguments against grammar schools are as strong as they ever were, particularly since the unskilled manual jobs, for which the secondary moderns largely prepared their pupils, have all but disappeared. Those who suggest that a revived grammar school sector would bring affluent, influential parents back to the state system, thus giving them an interest in its success, talk nonsense. If such parents came back at all, they would simply have an interest in the grammar schools as they did in the 1950s and 1960s, when the secondary moderns suffered inferior funding to a quite scandalous extent. It is equal nonsense to argue that grammars would give chances to poor children that are denied them by comprehensives, since the large majority of the poor wouldn't get to them in the first place. (If you doubt this, consider the wealth of evidence that many children from poor homes have fallen hopelessly behind their classmates as early as seven, never mind 11.) Far better, as David Blunkett, the Secretary of State for Education, proposes, to bribe the inner-city comprehensives to make special provision for their brightest children.

But Mr Blunkett is right also not to repeat the Crosland mistake. He will not try to enforce the abolition of the 164 grammar schools remaining in England (one in 20 of all secondary schools). Instead each school will continue to select unless a ballot of local parents decides otherwise. Here, expediency - placating the Daily Mail - usefully coincides with principle - accepting the autonomy of local decision-making. Mr Blunkett may well be criticised for leaning too far towards the first, since his legislation makes it extraordinarily difficult for comprehensive supporters to trigger a ballot (they have first to organise a petition signed by 20 per cent of local parents). But there is simply no point in allowing the government's educational programme to be dominated by localised wrangles over an issue that can still arouse raw ideological passions. (The Tories took a similar view and restrained themselves from a widespread reintroduction of grammar schools, while doing everything possible to rig the system in favour of ambitious middle-class parents.) The challenge is to restore public confidence in the comprehensives, attended by 90 per cent of our children. Once this is done, parental demand to do away with the remaining grammar schools will be irresistible.

The big issue, then, is not the fate of grammar schools in Kent and Ripon - which are among the areas where ballots are likely to be triggered - but the Blunkett vision for comprehensives. Central to this is the idea of specialist schools, in the arts, technology, languages and sports, which would be able to select up to 10 per cent of their entrants by aptitude in the relevant specialist area. The intention is that, by 2003, as many as one in four secondary schools will specialise. Old Labour, dedicated to the idea that a comprehensive system means covering the country with identical 11-18 schools (it even, for a time, opposed sixth-form colleges), will argue that this is just wicked old selection by the back door. A more optimistic view is that it will create a genuine diversity in schooling, open to parents of all classes and incomes, for an age that expects choice in public as well as private services. Either way, the debate, so far almost ignored by politicians and press in favour of the dreary old ding-dong about grammar schools, ought to begin.

UNQUOTE

[TomTom]

The constitutional position is simply that we elect MPs and The House of Commons determines who is Prime Minister if he can command a majority.
No Prime Minister has ever been elected by the electorate
Posted by: TomTom

That statement is crass/obtuse/naive on so many levels that it hardly warrants this reply.

Posted by: economic armagordon | June 03, 2007 at 17:35

It is fact. This is not Israel...we do not elect anyone as Prime Minister. It is simply whoever can command a majority in the House of Commons. churchill was not even Conservative Leader until Chamberlain died in November 1940 and he had never even been a Member of the Government prior to May 1940.

He was not even first choice as Prime Minister - Lord Halifax was. Churchill only became Prime Minister because Labour refused to serve under Lord Halifax.

Anthony Eden became Prime Minister and called an election only because Churchill had exhausted the 1951 Mandate....Macmillan took over in January 1957 but had no election until 1959.

Macmillan went in 1963 and passed over to Douglas-Home

The situation is clear...Brown is merely following tradition

[Downsize the NHS]

"I wonder what ID he was previously using before he came up with this hamfisted attempt at humour?"

He's probably one of the Camerloons who said they would never post again.

[RobinClash]

A simple example of why comprehensives have been bad for the majority of children.

I joined a large catholic Norh East comp' the 1st year it became a comp'. The boys grammar school, (small part) annually acheived a small number of Oxbridge entrants.

The year I joined 30% of the teachers left the boys grammar and girls convent.

For the 1st two years, out of 30 children we had ~ 4 very bright, 4 fairly bright, 10, middleing, 6 below average and 6 absolute nutters, who were always bound to leave school unable to read or write. One had a pet which he used to bring to school; it was rather fine carrion crow that sometimes "cawed" during lessons, much to the amusement of everyone. It didn't seem a bad thing at the time, but how much learning time did we waste being amused by the crow.

Once you were streamed at the end of year 3, you still suffered because the same no-hopers were there in the playground.

In a grammar neither the boy nor the crow would have been present and the children would have been there to learn! That's the difference and that's why Comp deliver a poor education overall, and everyone knows it!

[Jon White]

"The constitutional position is simply that we elect MPs and The House of Commons determines who is Prime Minister if he can command a majority.

No Prime Minister has ever been elected by the electorate"

True enough. BUT, Blair went into the last election promising to serve a full third term. Many would have voted labour thinking that they were getting 5 years of TB.

Consequently, by stepping down early, TB has broken a key election pledge. Therefore, GB has no mandate to govern GB.

[Matt Wright]

Hang on a minute, those that are saying streaming doesn't work because teachers can't cope seem to be ignoring that some grammars stream within school as well. Can't have it both ways. I attended a comp that streamed and I don't remember any issues about bullying of those in higher streams or problems with teachers. We are back to the point that we need to improve most schools not just a few,

Matt

[Mack of Carlisle]

It looks as though "Dave" is holed below the waterline on the grammar schools issue. Perhaps to regain the initiative he should elect to go on Big Brother, where he will find plenty of soulmates prepared to debate with him his penchant for counter intuitive policies that have no basis in principle - at least not Conservative ones.

It may have escaped the notice of those in Central Office who,presumably, assist Messrs Cameron and Osborne in formulating policy that, in the recent French Presidential elections, the clear choice between candidates from the Left and Right resulted in a turnout greater than 80% of the electorate.

[TomTom]

True enough. BUT, Blair went into the last election promising to serve a full third term. Many would have voted labour thinking that they were getting 5 years of TB.

Consequently, by stepping down early, TB has broken a key election pledge. Therefore, GB has no mandate to govern GB.

That isn't a bad argument, but against that we can say politicians always lie in elections....Labour 2001 promised no Top-Up Fees and promptly introduced them

"We have no plans to introduce University top-up fees, and have legislated to prevent their introduction."

Manifesto Pledge

[Chelloveck]

"We are back to the point that we need to improve most schools not just a few,"

No, what you need to do is take out the 'we' (i.e. politicians) and replace it with 'they' (i.e. local communities).

Leave the choice of educational structures to local communities. 100% their choice. Combine that with the hinted voucher approach, then you will have a rock-solid approach to education.

Just don't feel the need to interfere and impose your own view, as local communities will know perfectly well what is needed and works best for them.

Vouchers creates parent power but it has to be combined with free to choose which educational structures to work.

[Andrew Lilico]

Tory T@09:35 was right. There's not been any policy U-turn. Unlike him, I don't say this because I favour the original policy. I just say it because it's true. I would have thought we'd do better to leave it to our opponents to accuse our leader of dissembling or being forced to back down. It's perfectly legitimate for us to argue that the policy should be changed - politicians change their policies all the time. It's not so appropriate a thing for us to claim "victory" over our leader - as if, somehow, we had bullied him to our will - when we are supposed to be on his side.

[Andrew Lilico]

Now, on to vouchers. I'm fully with the thought that we need to focus on aspects of education that will have significance for the vast majority of parents. So if we want to campaign on the basis of significant reforms, we should try to avoid them being purely at the organisational level - so that only teachers and school administrators will care about them directly.

Vouchers are one obvious way to do this. I'm not yet convinced that they are the best way to do this, or that they are a second-best-but-sellable alternative. But I do want to say this: if we are to have a voucher policy, it must not be like the half-baked policy we announced in 2003. Specifically, if there is to be a voucher, it *must* be a voucher that can be topped up. The great virtue of such a scheme is that it encourages good parents to prioritize their funds. Perhaps they have to choose between giving their children riding lessons and instead saving a little to add to their voucher so the kids can get into a better school. Or perhaps the family holiday must be in the Lake District rather than Orlando or Tenerife. Whatever. The point is that we should empower people to express their priorities in action, so that they can promote the interests of their children. Our 2003 policy - that the voucher can only be used in a school with fees exactly equalling the value of the voucher - misses this great empowering theme of vouchers, looks ridiculous to the press, and is incoherent and unsellable. Its only merit was that it avoided the "deadweight cost" of funding, with a voucher, parents that already send their children to private school. But then the question arises: do we believe in private schools or not? If we don't, why are we proposing a voucher scheme in the first place? If we do, what's the problem?

[Cllr.Tony Woodcock]

Seems to me the Willetts/Cameron attack on grammar schools is riddled with inconsistencies. It does not even equate to the general statement that Cameron wants to give public sector professionals the power to run their services without government ineterference. We now have today "power to the people". How does this square with politicians telling schools how they should select pupils, what they should teach, how they should teach it, how they should stream, and whether or not teachers should ask pupils to put up their hands if they know the answer.
How is Mr. Willetts going to force teachers to stream within schools. This has been possible for decades but the culture of the educational establishment is totally opposed.
It is all complete nonesense. If Cameron really believes in power to the people he should adopt the Direct Democracy proposal of giving parents the right to demand of their LEA the cost of educating a child in that Authority and allowing them to take their child to any school, including independents, if they want.
But first, he will have to increase the supply side of educational provision by scrapping the ridiculous "Surplus Places Rule".
If we really believe in "Power to the people", and I do, we must stop playing games and start arguing a case for it properly.

[Yet Another Anon]

That isn't a bad argument, but against that we can say politicians always lie in elections....Labour 2001 promised no Top-Up Fees and promptly introduced them
Edward Heath was pledged to radically restructure the state and cut public spending dramatically. Of course his government carried out some nationalisations of state industries, embarked on an inflationary spending spree growing the welfare state faster than Labour had done under Harold Wilson.

Of course there was devaluation under Labour in the late 1960's which was a break of a pledge, also the increase in VAT after the 1979 General election campaign in breach of a General election commitment. The 1992-95 years were a spectacular example of a breach of pledge in that it was promised in the previous General Election to cut taxes instead of which a spending spree with tax cuts in the run up to the General Election was followed by the squandering of huge amounts of money propping up the pound in the ERM and then a massive tax hike and only in the last 2 years did that government meet it's pledges on overall tax policy.

Margaret Thatcher mostly stuck with election pledges, far more common by governments is not to announce a major policy and then carry it out after a General election - water, electricity & rail privatisation were all not announced at the previous General Election and nor was the transfer of the responsibility for setting interest rates to the MPC.

[TomTom]

the right to demand of their LEA the cost of educating a child in that Authority

but LEAs do not control Post-16 education - that is in the hands of LSC quangos and they control the budgets.

LEAs have ring-fenced funds they cannot control and funds for Pre-School and Post-16 education are controlled centrally.

Since the Academy budgets are also controlled centrally Education is basically a State Education Service run from London and Statute controls everything.

The largest single budget item for local government is Education but they do not control it and have had less and less control since the 1960s

[Chelloveck]

So, let's get this straight.

As of today, the Tory Party leadership believes that grammar schools entrench disadvantage but will continue to allow them to do this forever in the areas where they exist and to build new ones if the population in that area changes to ensure no child in that area can escape this entrenched disadvantage?

If something is good for kids education, should it not be expanded nationally? If it is bad, should it not be closed down?

What is this confused half-way house policy of central imposition of different educational structures on different regions?

Does this not just come down to wealth again? Why should leafy Buckinghamshire have one policy that is denied to not so leafy Bethnal Green?

[Torygirl]

Robin Harris writes in the Daily Mail: Why does David Cameron despise the Tories:-

As head of the Tory Research Department and a member of the No 10 policy unit under Margaret Thatcher, Robin Harris was one of the most influential Conservatives of his age, whose policies helped transform Britain from an economic basket case into Europe's most dynamic economy. Here, in a devastating personal critique, he accuses David Cameron - who, ironically, he talent spotted - of betraying everything the party should stand for...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?
in_article_id=459352&in_page_id=1787

[Graham D'Amiral]

I strongly support Grammar schools and consider myself fortunate to live in a area where we do still have them.

However it is now time to move on from this debate that has begun to go round in circles. This is a foolish and misguided policy that caused a needless argument when let's face it grammar schools wasn't even on the radar as issue in politics. Lessons need to be learnt so we avoid repeating these mistakes, but there is nothing to be achieved by prolonging this dispute any further.