« Sarkozy versus Brown | Main | Liberal Democrats up sharply in ICM poll »

Comments

I'm totally underwhelmed by this news.

Cameron lives in a lovely party of Rural England and I am sure that the local State Schools, be they called comprehensives or whatever, are a far cry from the inner city sink schools bearing that name to which many of our citizens have to send their children. Even if by that time he is in Number 10 and lives over the shop with his family, I am sure that Holland Park, used by Tony Benn to educate his children, or one of the better London State Schools would accommodate and I cannot see him sending his offspring to what Tony Blair so accurately called a "Bog Standard Comprehensive" after all he sent his lad to The Oratory.

The Comprehensive System has been a dismal failure to many people and is nothing else but Social Engineering in the guise of Education and its results can be seen in the innumerate and illiterate, ill-mannered and alas in too many cases unemployable children that too often are to be found in our streets today.

It is ironic that many of the leading lights in Labour, present and past, owe their chance and success in life to a Grammar School education where yes, they were SELECTED BY ABILITY! This is ultimately what happens in real life anyway.

So I'm afraid I see this as nothing else but Gesture Politics from a man well versed in such.

As my old teacher used to write in red ink in the margin of exercise books "*** Poor. Could do better. See me!"

It's obvious that the state control model of governance from Whitehall doesn't work. All schools need to be given their independence to teach their children in the ways that are required, each community has different problems and factors which require schools to have complete flexibility on how to teach.

Also get rid of league tables and "targets" it's time to TEACH children not drill them to fill targets. Labour has been doing the drilling since they came to power and we now have the dire situation of a state education system that doesn't work and the shocking difference between the quality of education between state and private/independently schooled pupils, in case anyone has been on Mars and hasn't noticed state pupils are being failed by the system and can not compete with pupils taught at other schools that have independence be their public, grammar etc It's not only a disaster for the children its a disaster for our society.

"Cameron vows to create a good school in every community"

I look forward to the New Conservatives coming up with an ethical foreign policy next.

Sorry these pronouncements leave me cold, it all sounds so New Labour and with that having been found out I do wonder why the Conservatives are following the New Labour handbook, strategy for strategy.

PS Anyway how can we afford them, we're a bankrupt country aren't we ? Isn't that the issue of the day, the month, the year, the decade?

It's all quite the right thing to do.

Plus whilst the absence of the ability of new schools to make profits (and the inability of new grammars to be created under this plan) is a weakness, this is all about the politics at this stage.

Once in power these flaws will be eliminated pretty damn quick!

Why not just go back to the old tried and tested Grammar School system. Choose a couple of schools in each district, reintroduce an entrance exam and encourage the brightest of our kids (from whatever social background) to enter them!

"Why not just go back to the old tried and tested Grammar School system."

Careful Libbie, you're sounding like a Conservative. Shame on you.

More seriously, what will happen if a group/charity/whoever wants to set up a grammar school? Would we actively block such a move?

Yes Neil. Tory policy is to block any new school that is a grammar school.

Pathetic.

I welcome this announcement. I could, as a woman without children, find myself totally disinterested but in fact I can see how crucial reform of the education system is to the long-term future of this country. Perhaps that is because I have served as a school governor and can see how very much head teachers would welcome more autonomy. For David Cameron to say that he would be happy to send his children to a State School provided the standards were high enough is quite a watershed moment - and a welcome one in my opinion! Labour of course would hate it as no longer will they be able to hurl their "Tory Toff" jibes with such merry abandon!

The idea of selection is anathema to the left but it is a valid point that should - in a free and open society - be debated calmly and rationally. There are obviously pros and cons and if selection at 11+ to grammar schools is still a major hang-up, then that should be debated to find a better way.

I have frequently argued that intellectual development can be compared to physical development and I would ask where the our Olympians for 2012 are going to come from if they do not go through the mill of selection and competition. That's life, really!

What is wrong with grammar schools at the moment is that there are either too many (i.e. there should be none) or there are not nearly enough of them (i.e. there should be one in every town).

I am biased because my father's parents struggled financially to bring up five children but my father went to grammar school, then passed out first in the civil service exam, took an external London degree and learned Hebrew at the age of 40 because someone bet him that he couldn't learn anything new after that age. That is an example of social mobility of the highest order and my generation has benefited enormously.

If the conservatives still believe in local democracy, will local authorities not be allowed to choose whether or not to convert good comprehensives into grammars should parents vote in favour of them? I think they should.

Finally, I hope that what David Cameron is proposing is a vast expansion of the Academies project i.e. grant maintained schools under another name. They were becoming really successful until Blair ceased them.

I agree with the policy of making schools independent. Like hospitals schools are better off controlled by the people who work in them rather than politicans.
I do not agree with this obsession some people have with grammer schools. The grammer school system may have given some children a good education but it consinde the majority to a second rate education and failure at twelve.
We shouldn`t go back but forwards to a new system that gives all a decent education not just the few.

"Why not just go back to the old tried and tested Grammar School system. Choose a couple of schools in each district, reintroduce an entrance exam and encourage the brightest of our kids (from whatever social background) to enter them!"

Well I would agree, but you know the 11+ didn't work like that. If you could afford private tutors and were of the social status to be able to get the Headmaster to recommend your child, you were in. Of course you still had tom pass the examination but a recommendation was also important. The Village I lived in as a child was absolutely typical in this respect. Not one child from a working class background got into the local grammar school, not one. Only the children of the middle and upper middle class had any hope of getting a place, and it caused a great deal of resentment. At the time for every £1.00 that was spent on the secondary modern £4.00 was spent on the grammar school. The bullshit that some children would be better off learning manual skills, might have been right if there had been a reasonable level of investment in the sec-mods, but they were starved of cash and morel was understandable low. Fast forward to ROSLA, and suddenly these children had to sit examinations. Many of the sec-mod kids started to make it into university. Hardly surprising as there had always been highly intelligent children stuck in the system.
The divided education system might have been understandable when we needed many uneducated and low paid workers to man the factories. In this day and age it is not,we need as many professionals as we can train up. So did standards slip in this area after the grammar school was turned into a comprehensive? Well actually no, the local grammar was one of the top schools in the country then, and it remains one of the top schools in the country today. Grammar schools are not coming back, and I am quite content with that. Selection and schools of excellence may well return, but we cannot allow the kind of shortsighted social policies of the 50-80's to rob bright children of a future again. The Grammar schools system was great for getting middle class children up the ladder, but they absolutely failed the brighter working class children. I will repeat again the damming fact that in the village I lived as a child, not one child from a working class background was selected for the local grammar school and not one had ever been selected. Strangely many of the children who fell through the net made it into university, and or good jobs, but only as a result of ROSLA, and then only by abandoning the village for the local town to further their education.

"There are obviously pros and cons and if selection at 11+ to grammar schools is still a major hang-up, then that should be debated to find a better way."

The problem with grammar schools is that the selection didn't go far enough, in that they selected for academic qualities, but they didn't select for anything else. So everything else became thought as a dumping ground. In Germany I understand they also select for technical skills, so stream children to schools that train for technical brilliance.

The tripartite system of secondary education had serious shortcomings.

(i) The proportion of eleven-year-olds admitted to grammar schools depended on the area where you lived: it was easier to get in to a grammar school in some parts of the country, more difficult in others.

(ii) The system discriminated against girls, who were judged to “develop intellectually earlier than boys”.

(iii) Grammar schools were better funded than secondary modern schools, and their teachers enjoyed higher salaries and status.

(iv) Too few children were reassessed for transfer to grammar school at age thirteen.

(v) Technical schools proved too expensive and were abandoned by the few authorities that had built them.

For grammar schools to be reintroduced these failings would need to be addressed, so that secondary modern schools could genuinely offer an education that was different but not inferior.

The problem with education is that it is under political jurisdiction. The educational system needs to be made autonomous, allowed to elect from within its own ranks, freeing it from ministerial and ideological control. Conservatives so often talk about rolling back the state and education is an area in which this is entirely possible.

The state should determine the amount for educational funding and no more, all other policy on education should be formulated by experts in the field, in-house, then the pressure to meet targets to make the government look good will be a thing of the past and those in education can get down to the job of giving our young the best possible learning environment.

Those who fear a political agenda from the NUT have to understand that the NUTs strength comes from its fractious relationship with the government of the day. Remove government from education and the NUTs raison d'etre will no longer exist.

We must look to roll back the state in education. Government interference has been so damaging, it stops teachers teaching and stops pupils learning. Extract the politics from our schools and make education in our country truly independent.

Not just a grammar school in every town, but a grammar school for the 50% of the school population who would benefit from it - based on GCSE passes.

Politics of envy - betraying children.

There are undobtedly children who would get a better education at a grammer school than else where - these childrens opportunities are to be sacrificed in the interest of 'social engineering'.

I am having to spend my kids collage funds on private secondary education (carefully saved from earned/taxed income from since before they were born).

The biggest losers from the anti-grammer approach are the bright poor kids who will never reach their potential - at least mine will reach their potential, even if they will start adult life heavily in debt with student loans.

Good education is the first rung of 'social mobility' and the only way *proven* to provide this to any state pupils is selective schools.

They used to have good schools in every community. Grammar schools.

Grammar schools. Grammar schools. Grammar schools.

Yawn.

This is the right approach and tone. Most people just want a decent local school to go to. They don't want to be having to ships kids around or pay lots of money they've already paid in taxes. The tone is also important and correct. Many comprehensives needed to be better, yes of course, but to attack people (myself included) who didn't go to a grammar school (as some posts on this site are doing) is sheer folly and politically stupid. More power to Camerons elbow.

What is 'a community'? How big or small is it? Are they all the same size?

Jus a few thoughts:

"Not just a grammar school in every town, but a grammar school for the 50% of the school population who would benefit from it - based on GCSE passes"

Based on GCSE passes, how so? Do you mean SAT results. 50% is still an artificial division. What we really need is good
schools for all children.

"They used to have good schools in every community. Grammar schools."

And a very poor school in every community a secondary Modern. Right now we have a mixture of very good schools and terrible schools,nothing has changed. Those parents with the funds can buy into private schools or move to the catchment area of a good school.

"Politics of envy - betraying children.

There are undoubtedly children who would get a better education at a grammar school than else where - these children's opportunities are to be sacrificed in the interest of 'social engineering'."

Is it the politics of envy to expect good schools for all children regardless of social background?

"these children's opportunities are to be sacrificed in the interest of 'social engineering'."

Which children are going to be sacrificed?
"social engineering" delivering high standards to all children is common sense.
We can longer afford to perpetuate a class system, unless of course you want to live in a third world nation.

"Grammar schools. Grammar schools. Grammar schools.

Yawn."

Absolutely why are some people so attached to such a divisive and wrong concept. We should be working towards all schools being able to deliver excellent education to all of our pupils.

i think the noting hill set should start paying attention to us th real CONSERVATIVE voter isnteaad of the ppl in Tower Hamlets

"..so that secondary modern schools could genuinely offer an education that was different but not inferior".

You are quite correct, John Anslow at 11:04.
We must have a state education system that does not miss anybody out. I am as concerned for the 30+% of 11 year olds who cannot read, write or count properly, as I am about the high achievers. Both need specialist teaching but of a totally different sort and I do query whether it will be feasible to get sufficient high grade staff for sixth forms in comprehensives unless they are huge. That then raises another question; what is the optimum size for a school (11 to 18)?

In turn that raises another question; why has Ed Balls just raised the leaving age? Non-academics naturally want to leave school as soon as possible and academics will stay at school until they have got their qualifications anyway. The really bright ones will have done that by 17/18.

I also agree with Tony Makara's point:

"The educational system needs to be made autonomous, allowed to elect from within its own ranks, freeing it from ministerial and ideological control".

Somebody recently suggested setting up a Royal College of Teachers to do this.

Finally I come back to the point about local government; I thought the idea was to devolve power to the lowest appropriate level? Therefore is it not for the local authority to find out from parents what sort of schools they want?

Good schools require good teachers and we do not have anywhere rear sufficient good teachers because of our largely dumbed down state education system. Consequently it will take at least a generation, or maybe two, to fix this problem.

Ironically, thanks to the state education put in place by Attlee’s government in the late 1940s, we were nearly there in the late 1950s as the approximately 25% of the population who attended grammar schools were well educated. The education most of the remaining 75% was not generally very good but this could have been fixed by tapping into the better educated from the grammar schools and encouraging more of such people into the teaching profession Unfortunately, successive Tory and Labour governments tried to find a shortcut with the rapid expansion of the comprehensive system and the rest is history.

The solution is to start expanding the quality of education for an increasing number of children and then to build on this. This implies a return to the grammar school system or something similar.

Finally, we have to recognise that some employers provide a very useful function in developing and completing the education of those they employ and increasing the added value of those they employ. For this to work correctly, employers need to be encouraged to recruit locally and to build up the potential of the local workforce. Employers won’t do this if they find they can recruit employees more cheaply from abroad.

An Eton in every community?


G--R--A--M--M--A--R S--C--H--0--O--L--S
What does that spell?

John Anslow said:

"(iv) Too few children were reassessed for transfer to grammar school at age thirteen."

It was often a very difficult transition for the very few who did get the chance. Having had their education sabotaged meant they had difficulties catching up. Imagine coming into a Latin class two years late, not a very pleasant experience. They were also subject to prejudice from the other children and in some cases the teachers. After ROSLA it became impossible for most children to transfer.

"An Eton in every community?


G--R--A--M--M--A--R S--C--H--0--O--L--S
What does that spell?" Let me see, short sightedness ? A desire to repeat the mistakes of the past?

An Eton In every community, now that is a goal worth striving for, or so we are told.
I have met a few very badly adjusted ex-Etonians in my time. Is it wrong to want the very best for all of our children, and not just the children of the better off?


this has nothing to do wealth you MARXIST

I think the noting hill set should start paying attention to us, the real CONSERVATIVE voter instead of the people in Tower Hamlets.

Like your statement, your politics are in need of urgent correction. We cannot win the next election without appealing to a wider spread of voters than just the very few who consider themselves to be "real" Conservatives. Who these people are is anyone's guess, but maybe you would like to enlighten.

"this has nothing to do wealth you MARXIST"

No it has a great deal to do with education TROLL.

"This has nothing to do with wealth you Marxist." I imagine you are trying to scrawl.

I take it you want your children to be as badly provided for as you clearly were.

I wonder how Dave's going to sell this one to his kids: "Yes, I know I had the best education money could buy, but look, I had to sacrifice you lot to be seen as a new progressive, metropolitan Conservative. Hey, though, not to worry, Mummy and I will still leave you several million each, so that should make up for the third rate state eduction you had to endure for my career".

This is the most pathetic gesture politics imaginable by Cameron, without even getting into this announcement. Trust me, in Kent, this anti-grammar school rhetoric is a real turn off.

Frankly I suspect the less the state has to do with a school, the better it will become.

When we liberated a very small number of schools in the late 80s through Grant Maintained status, they flourished, rapidly.

OK, we did not go far enough and make all schools GM and break the power of the unions and the LEAs in the process, but do not underestimate the will amongst the teaching professon to deliver better education. Yes, there are many lefties and luvvies, but they are as fed up of central direction and control as anybody.

Funding parents creates a million customers, rather than just one, the Government. "The Blob", as Chris Woodhead famously described the education establishment, just bounces back however hard it is hit with however big a sledgehammer from above, but it will not survive the death by a million cuts which will come from below under our proposed reforms.

And it is easy to open new schools. Find an empty office building, rent it, buy furniture, employ teachers and invite parents to apply.

And that's the key - the parents, the people.

If we don't trust the people, then why are we even pretending to be Conservatives?

" Trust me, in Kent, this anti-grammar school rhetoric is a real turn off."

It's not grammar schools I am against its Secondary moderns or their modern equivalents. Here (in a city) its pro-grammar school rhetoric that will lose votes.
There hasn't been one here since the 60's. Better I believe to go down the Grant maintained school route, than return to a name that is associated with unfairness.
Specialist School Status, has been successful here. Maybe we should be looking at regional solutions rather than imposing a one size fits all solution from above.

I was fortunate to be born in Wales where the Grammar School system worked so much better than in England. One of the reasons was that the intake was far bigger - 40% in the Grammar School I went to. There was very little resentment in the local community that deserving children could not be admitted. That, and a much greater respect for 'Learning' in the population at large, resulted in a dedicated group of teachers who valued excellence and usually succeeded in getting the best out of their pupils
Certainly, as an earlier post says, the mistake was that the local SecMod was not funded equally but with current levels of funding that need not happen now.

"When we liberated a very small number of schools in the late 80s through Grant Maintained status, they flourished, rapidly".

Absolutely true, John. From memory, I believe there were about 1100 GM schools when Blair axed them (there was also an assisted places scheme that he axed as well).

It was a slow process to go GM because parents had to be balloted and of course there was quite a lot of hostility to the idea from the vested interests - the unions and LEAs.

"And it is easy to open new schools. Find an empty office building, rent it, buy furniture, employ teachers and invite parents to apply".

As you might know, Chris Woodhead is putting his money where his mouth is and has started a whole chain of low cost independent schools, without the frills of the traditional public school.

"When we liberated a very small number of schools in the late 80s through Grant Maintained status, they flourished, rapidly"."

Nothing wrong with grant Maintained schools and way easier to sell on the doorstep. There have even been a few improvement under Labour that we should look at again. Specialist School Status, has been very good for my Children's school which is in the top 10% of the State sector. My only complaint is that although a lot of the children get into university, very few indeed have made it into Oxford or that other place. Not that I would want to impose selection targets on Oxford. It confirms that although the education is good by state sector standards there is still some way to go yet. On the other hand the Grammer school that my home village fed into, managed to get very many more of its pupils into the best universitys.

I never realised David Cameron was so stupid.

Yes, I too am in favour of "good schools"!

Jesus Christ...

Cameron is paternalistic and anti-middle class. His children will not need for much whatever his own personal vanity and ambition propel him to say or do. It's time to deliver the party from these blue blood Tories and establish Conservatism as a middle class movement that aspires to belief in country, a small state, and individual freedom.

"It's time to deliver the party from these blue blood Tories and establish Conservatism as a middle class movement that aspires to belief in country, a small state, and individual freedom."

Why is belief in country, a small state and individual freedom middle-class? Our party should strive to be a one-nation party; liberty, freedom and 'good schools' are just as important to aristocrats and working class people as they are to middle class people.

Mark Hudson,

Research has shown quite clearly that if you have bright parents it does not matter where you go to school, even an inner-city comp, you will get reasonably good results. I am sure Cameron's children will be alright. The school a child attends matters more to those in the middle IQ range, to enable them to climb the ladder, and to those in the bottom IQ range, to ensure that they come out of school with at least some basic literacy and numeracy.
In general, I welcome Cameron's policy, although I would prefer a full-on voucher system for all, he and Gove are on the right lines. I also think parents should be able to elect local councils that will be able to reintroduce selection in their local area, if that is what they want, parental choice must be parental choice. In general though I think we have the foundations of a good education policy coming into place.

"Why is belief in country, a small state and individual freedom middle-class? Our party should strive to be a one-nation party; liberty, freedom and 'good schools' are just as important to aristocrats and working class people as they are to middle class people."

No, the party should not aspire to be a "one-nation" party, largely because the term itself is as vacuous as the direction of the current leadership. My answer to your question about why these are middle class values is that I don't know why for certain, but historically that has been the case, probably because the middle class largely consists of people who have aspired to better themselves, want more of the same for their children, put responsibility and duty before immediate gratification, and have demonstrated the will, resourcefulness and and intelligence to do so. It is no accident that Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit came from middle class backgrounds. These people are the backbone of Britain and of British conservatism.

"Our party should strive to be a one-nation party; liberty, freedom and 'good schools' are just as important to aristocrats and working class people as they are to middle class people."

Very well put.

"I never realised David Cameron was so stupid.

Yes, I too am in favour of "good schools"!

Jes*s Ch**st..."

Is there any excuse for such blasphemy. If you had attended a "good" school you would know better. I believe, we are all in favour of Good schools, it seems that some would like to reintroduce the bad ones to help pay the bills. That's all its quite a straightforward argument! and there is no need for such an outburst is there?

" It is no accident that Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit came from middle class backgrounds. These people are the backbone of Britain and of British conservatism"

I suspect that your definition of Middle-class is rather coloured by your own background. Many people would rightly attribute most of your observations to the working class. Ie those who work for a living. The emergence or rather the enlargement of an underclass seems to have blurred the class boundaries somewhat. As an example my Grandmother was a senior cook at a great house. A job that we might now call Middle class as she was saleried, and my Grandfather was a tool maker, a highly skilled person in today's terminology. My Mother was a accounting Clark and my Father a foreman for a then well known record deck manufacturer. All of these Jobs required education and application. All of these Jobs paid very well thank you, and all of these Jobs might today be described as Middle or at worst Lower Middle class. All of these people owned their own homes and all of these people voted Conservative all of their lives. Of course today we are all Middle Class or at least we believe we are. In fact most of us are Urban working class. It is and always has been the Hardworking class of Britian that has formed the backbone of the party and unless something very strange happens it always will be.

Dearie, dearie me! I write as an ex-Grammar School boy from a very poor background.

The essential problems of our education system start with infant and primary schools. That is where the damage is done. In part, difficulties are caused by requiring children to commence schooling at an age when many of them are not sufficiently mature. From that point onwards it is a struggle to catch up which dies off at age 11 when a child finally becomes convinced of its mediocrity and inadequacy.

So, we must first learn to walk and then, hopefully, to run.

From age 11 onwards children are the victims of an insatiable appetite for change by legislators and the ennui caused by many members of the NUT.

So, even the reintroduction of the wonderful grammar schools can no longer help very much.

Renaming everything does not help - whether it is called a secondary modern or a comprehensive or an academy or a super-secondary does not overcome the harm done at ages 4 to 11.

Ed Balls has, in a short time in post, introduced more useless changes in schools than any other 3 Schools Ministers combined. He is a one-man blight on education.

Will Cameron's people improve things significantly? Not with their current thinking. They will just juggle the broken bits around.

What countries have good standards of education for their children? Let Michael Gove study those, see what they do well and do likewise.

As a loyalist I too am fairly underwhelmed with this. I do not give a damn where DC sends his children to schoool.
I do give a damn about the current state system that fails so many of our children.
We are proposing some good things, a less dumbed down examination system and more freedom for teachers.
But I do not know how much evidence we need to have before we admit that the comprehensive system has not been a success.
I also see that there is significant evidence to suggest that the enormous size of many schools (1500plus pupils) is detrimental to many childrens education.
Our support of Academies also seems misplaced. They are expensive gimmicks in my opinion with little that sets them apart from a bog standard comp.
There should in my opinion be selection by ability and aptitude.For those who bleat against it just consider one thing. Selection already exists ,it's largely by postcode. How fair is that?
Once in power I hope we prove to be more radical in our education policy than we have been to date.

There is no equivalent of Ed Balls job in Germany - no central control or training, Chambers of Commerce - IHK control training and all businesses are compulsorily members of the Chamber - they coordinate training.

Central control of schools and curriculum came from Kenneth Baker and Margaret Thatcher. PFI turned head teachers into lessees having to fund rent and repairs. Supply teaching became a new business for agencies and costs exploded as the New Model was unleashed.

Cameron pledges more comprehensives without making Eton one of them. If he thinks comprehensives work and paying for schooling is such a waste then integrate all public schools into the comprehensive system abd make them diverse in their intake.

Nicholas Keen, People from all sorts of backgrounds aspired to getting the best for their children. The traditional working class in partcular wanted this. I admit that sort of traditional working class has been in decline but don't confuse that with the modern underclass which is entirely different.

"I come from a traditional working class background and I am rather proud of the fact"

MG has put it very well. The Traditional working class was on the whole sober, hardworking and quite religious. It had a very distinct Family centred culture, and was what you might term the salt of the earth.
The underclass has always existed but has grown quite large, due to the Welfare state.
In my Granfather's Youth if you didn't work you didn't eat. My Grandmother was found of the phrase "it's all clean and paid for" they had and we still do have an aversion to debt, and "were very clean and well turned out."
The old joke that they looked up to the middle class, but not nearly as much as the upper class is absolutely true. You would certainly find a portrait of the queen in a working class home.

Bishops Wife you ask "Which children are going to be sacrificed?"

If it weren't for very good luck (saving from a very early date, a wonderful headmaster at a local private school)- my kids would be being sacrificed right now...

I'd probably sell the house and home educate them (in whatever tiny flat we ended up in) if the local comprehensive was the only other option...

Grammer schools would be a solution, as would the state paying my kids private fees (or at least giving me the money that the state is no longer spending on their education).

Why look for 'new' solutions when a proven one is staring you in the face.

I speak as someone whose education was sacrificed to state social engineering - comprehensive schools should be ashamed to use the moniker 'school' at all.

Abolish state education altogether and let people fend for themselves with the extra money they'll have when it and the rest of the welfare state are abolished

There is no equivalent of Ed Balls job in Germany - no central control or training, Chambers of Commerce - IHK control training and all businesses are compulsorily members of the Chamber - they coordinate training.

Central control of schools and curriculum came from Kenneth Baker and Margaret Thatcher. PFI turned head teachers into lessees having to fund rent and repairs. Supply teaching became a new business for agencies and costs exploded as the New Model was unleashed.

Cameron pledges more comprehensives without making Eton one of them. If he thinks comprehensives work and paying for schooling is such a waste then integrate all public schools into the comprehensive system abd make them diverse in their intake.

Will,

State funding will always be needed - otherwise how will a parent on minimum wage be able to afford to send their child to a school with somewhere approaching the same level of facilities as a wealthy parent who sends their child to Eton (unless that child is very bright and can win a scholarship). There should be a greater choice of private and public providers, but taxpayer funding of education in some form will always need to be available.

It is nonsense to suggest 50% of children going to Grammar school. By definition that is only those of average ability and above. A grammar school education was hard work, they took no prisoners..... Grammar schools should take perhaps the top 25% with about one third of those making it to University standard. Qualifications would then be worth something again.
The secondary Modern Schools and Technical Schools actually taught skills.... and attitudes.. that were of some use in the world of work.... not Meeja Studies and the like.

Sounds like the Conservatives trying to sound radical when in fact we know full well their policy is not that much different from Labour's.

One thing to be wary of is talking about creating a good school in every community as if there are no good schools in the country. There are, the problem comes with the large disparities between the good schools and the poor ones.

How many bad and mediocre schools?

Quote from Jack Stone our old Left Wing mate.

"I do not agree with this obsession some people have with grammer (sic) schools. The grammer (sic) school system"

Says it all really? I would be most surprised if Jack attended a GrammAr School!

Haddock,

I have no problem with grammars if parents want them, they provide excellent opportunities for those who attend them. However, selective education has to adapt to the 21st century not the 1950s. I do have concerns about the level of GCSE passes in some of the schools which used to be called secondary moderns. If they are going to get anywhere then they will have to offer a broad range of vocational courses (including, dare I say it, media studies). The fact is that Britain is no longer a manufacturing nation, we are now a service based economy. There is no point churning out 70-75% of the population for blue collar jobs because there are not the jobs for them. We are now a white collar majority economy, we need a majority of pupils to get good GCSEs. We are also not going to see fewer graduates in the long-term, the fact is that for most white collar jobs in the public and private sector jobs a degree is almost a pre-requisite, even if it is in business studies or a vocational course in most cases.

The fact is that Britain is no longer a manufacturing nation, we are now a service based economy.

get used to the fact that a Service Economy means jobs in office cleaning, hairdressing salons, care homes, shops, and clerical work - not banking, accountancy, law.

Service jobs are low-paid jobs and Britain excels at creating them. Britain has built a Media-Banking-Politics bubble-economy on credit and must pay back the debt of the past decades before servicing future debt.

You can have your Service Economy but it will not allow you to import Mercedes and Audis nor to have foreign vacations - living standards must drop because a Service Economy is what the Pre-Industrial Economy was - a very wealthy few and a very poor many

Tom Tom,

I never said a service based economy meant simply highly paid professionals (who still existed even when we had a manufacturing based economy by the way). We also have a higher median income now than we did in the past. Yes, we need high quality manufacturing in specialised areas but there is no point tying to turn back the clock, most core manufacturing will now be done in China etc. In any case, I do not see why successful hairdressers, chefs, shop or restaurant/bar managers, builders or office supervisors should be less well paid than coal miners or factory workers!

Mavies Millicent,
Apologies for any offence caused. I should have used a different exclamation.

That notwithstanding, this announcement is meaningless froth. Very disapointed - I would expect better from David Cameron.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker