´óÏó´«Ã½

It does not matter if the tories or Labour are in power. When it comes to education, they have both used the benefits of the most exclusive and expensive private educations to propel themselves and their offspring to the top. After securing the future of their political class, (several steps above the mere upper-class, who have little or no power) they proceed to kick the ladder away to prevent "outsiders" from bettering themselves. It is a disgrace that these people gained the full benefit of state funded university education after their public school days, to then strip this from the people of my generation. Social mobility is dead, and this cannot change until the political class of corruption is stripped of its privelages.

The grammer school saga is built upon misinformation. The truth is that you will probably follow your parents in what job you do e.g. if your parents are professional the chances are you will follow a professionl career and if your parents are unskilled the chances are you will be also. This is because the influnces of the home, books, newspapers, and attitude of parents is so important to the growing child. Grammer schools in leafy parts of town are for professional parents and do nothing for the inner city council estates - after all how many grammer pupils actually come from council estates?

Cameron is moving the Conservatives out of their comfort zone and this is what people are afraid of. In reality, as you mention Nick, no new Grammar Schools have been built either under Labour since 1997 or under the Conservative Governments of Thatcher and Major. Similarly, Thatcher herself as Education Secretary in Heath's 1970 Government let local authorities choose whether to keep Grammars or introduce Comprehensive Education.

Grammar Schools were supposed to 'give poorer pupils a leg up' as they were based on academic selection. In reality Nick, people can buy their way in to those as well. Private tuition, practice papers are all available and only those with a high amount of disposable income can afford them, which means that the original aim is frustrated. I attended a Grammar School to do my A Levels, after 5 successful years at a Secondary Modern, and if Grammar Schools were for poorer students, then I hate to think with the richest students are like.

People need to forget what Grammar Schools stood for in the past, and stop comparing them to the system that exists now. The Grammar School I attended had similar problems as the secondary modern - bullying, vandalism, discipline issues. The difference was that at the Secondary Modern it was accepted that there were problems and they were dealt with...

Similarly, most Secondary Modern schools stream pupils by intelligence anyway. Conversely, at the Grammar School, there isn't a system of streaming and there is no variation in teaching between students of different abilities. This meant that often, those who did not understand difficult concepts did not receive the help they needed. Everyone sat the same level of examination, based on a pass of an exam at 11, regardless of whether they had the academic ability or not.

Furthermore, I was in a top stream at the Secondary Modern School, and had just a good education as those at a Grammar School - indeed, we even sat the same exam papers and used the same exam boards. The idea of the doomed 'sink' schools, is a myth that is expanded to a certain extent.

Ultimately, a lot depends on the child himself. You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink - the same principle exists at Grammar Schools, Comprehensive Schools and even universities. If someone wants to work and do well, they will. I wanted to excel and during my time at the Secondary Modern had vast amounts of support from my teachers - I ended up with fantastic grades at GCSE which allowed me to build a foundation on which culminated in my place at university. The same is true for most of the student population, who are not from a selective background.

Instead of bringing up an age old debate - in which Grammar Schools will not be rebuilt en masse, look at the real problems: lack of investment in schools, giving wider discipline powers to teachers, modifying exams so as to cater for a wider range of interests.

The Conservatives will never really make an impact unless they stop thinking in "sound bite" tactics, issue by issue, which are not clearly linked to and underpinned by an over-riding strategic message.

That message? "Labour are appalling value for money."

Can anyone identify a single substantial Labour project or programme in transport, defence, IT, or other core infrastructure that has been delivered on budget, on time to the originally promised quality standards?

Now how many examples can you think of that have failed, several military projects, heaven knows how many huge IT projects, government buildings with collosal cost and time overuns, the list just goes on and on as it does with "Education, education, education"

How many people realise that most secondary school headmasters see barely 40% of the money per pupil that this administration claims we spend? It doesn't matter what you call our schools if we are squandering that much of the budget away from the classrooms! The real issue here is not whether comprehensive is better than grammar it's whether the whole process of running the system via LEA's has failed. After all the LEA's have had nearly two generations to shift resources around so that every school gets a fair share of resources and they have patently failed to do that. It is the LEA's and their policies that have created the huge loss of belief and morale in many schools so that is hard to find Head Teachers for them. Personally I have always thought that an unspoken part of the Labour "City Academy" policy was to sideline the LEA's and slowly strangle them. Perhaps the Conservatives understand this which is why they are supporting them?

A strategy of getting "cash to the classroom" based on eliminating a layer of bureaucracy which most parents find is the most powerful and user unfriendly that impacts their lives is immediate and appealing and far more relevant than relatively philosophical debates over grammar, comprehensive, maintained etc.

Apply this across the whole of government and you get a strategy based on delivering value as opposed to Labour just delivering the bills, which also neatly skips round the "TAx cuts or not" question, at least for a while.

The best education idea is vouchers for all parents to use at schools as they please. Vouchers alone would secure a state education, with the option to 'top up' for fee-paying schools if parents believe that'll help their children.

And let's have state scholarships for the top 1% academically gifted children.

As someone that attended a grammar school i believe that they work, i realise that my personal circumstances probably would have allowed me to achieve as high as i did at the local comprehensive. However, a number of my friends had they not gone to the grammar school would have gone to local comprehensives where the pass rate at GCSE was under 50% for A-C grades, two of my friends in particular stand out, one went on to get 10 A*'s at GCSE and then 2 A's and 2 B's at A level and the other came out with 6 A's at A level, both are now at university and probably wouldnt have acieved as much. Not because they weren't capable but the schools wouldnt have managed to stretch them and deal with the pupils struggling to pass any GCSE's. Personaly i think grammars do work and they give people chances they wouldn't otherwise have had.

Nick, the pronouncements from both parties about education recently show how little they understand about meeting the educational needs of ALL children. By focussing on the majority inevitably the minority groups suffer. All children are different in their needs. Put a square peg in a round hole and he/she struggles to fit in either educationally or socially - often being on the receiving end of bullying by class mates who do not understand them. Find a square hole for them and they blossom.
As for the idea that private school teachers can improve the teaching in state schools - not thought through at all. All schools both state and private have good teachers and bad teachers - the good ones could teach in both systems being able to hold the interest of their class and keep discipline in the class room so pupils can learn there. Bad teachers struggle - more so in the state system because of larger class sizes. So only the good private school teachers can add value to a state school but not as much as they do in private school because of class sizes. Not sure many parents would be happy paying private school fees to find the best teachers on loan to a local state school!
My wife has taught in both the state and private schools and found the challenges and rewards different in each system.
Back to the drawing board for both parties.
Steve R
ps have a good break

It would seem that this sequence of events is going to be a recurring theme for the Conservatives.

The backlash of traditional Tories to David Cameron's policy reforms will make it the image of the party increasingly difficult to control.

Gavin asks how many pupils from council estates went to grammar school. Well, there's at least one because I qualify on both those counts - admittedly, I was the only one in my year.

Having said that, I remain resolutely opposed to grammar schools. I had an awkward time at school, consistently reminded that I was a social 'inferior' and that I was lucky to be there.

Grammar schools start with the admirable intention of eliminating class differences but, in reality, they exacerbate them.

It was also unfair that grammar schools took a minority of pupils but had more resources devoted to them. It was great that we had five football pitches, three cricket squares, two hockey pitches, a rugby pitch, swimming pool, rifle range, a language lab and several well-equipped physics and chemistry labs, but even at 13 I felt that it was somehow unfair when kids at the local secondary modern had none of these (and don't get me started on the pointlessness of single-sex education.

I'm no Tory, but I think Cameron is right to tackle this issue and stop treating grammar schools as a Tory shibboleth. There's plenty that's wrong with education: the New Labour government have had ten years to get it right and are failing miserably.

What we should be aspiring to is decent education for all, regardless of wealth, parents' education or geography. As the parent of two young children, I would be very interested in any party that looks to offer an education to all and not an elite.

I feel there are many facets to this debate. Whilst I went to the local state comprehensive and am now at a very good university, I would have achieved more if I had been stretched. However, I am not sure that grammars are the way forward.
The response to my parents when they said I was getting nothing out of the lessons was tough luck we have to teach to the middle. Needless to say I got nothing out of those lessons for the three years I spent there. And furthermore neither did many other people as the people at the bottom were disruptive, people at the top were disruptive and the people in the middle couldn't get much done because of everyone else. Surely this is not getting the best out of people. However, when lessons were streamed well (unfortunately not many were) they were highly successful and everyone achieved something through the lessons. The comprehensives are capable of stretching people when they acknowledge we are all different and cater for people's needs.
Whilst I agree maybe Grammars stretch people I don't believe telling people at 11 you're good or bad is constructive. People change and develop. Proper streaming allows for change as necessary, it just needs to be done properly.
I also have a slight problem with the distribution of grammars. There is no consistency. There are none in my county or the surrounding ones, and a two hour drive each way (which would have to be from parents as public transport is impossible) is completely out of the question. It is not a fair system.
Needless to say that many people now buy their way into grammars through private sector education preceeding the test or private tuition.
Not enough is done to stretch the top end of students in comprehensives. If this was done I believe it could be better than the grammar system. It would give everyone an equal opportunity to achieve in whatever way is right for them. The diversity in comprehensives is useful to enable people to understand others. Surely the idea is that people at grammars will achieve highly, therefore are likely to go on to high paying jobs. Isn't that grouping people by some form of class, not by their parents but by their possible future earnings? In a comprehensive you can have more mixing in non examined subjects such as citizenship and physical education. Hence there should be less class divide and more understanding of different people. If catchment areas lead to one particular class maybe they need to be changed?
There is no easy answer or solution to this debate, but hopefully it will bring about some form of positive change to improve streaming and therefore teaching across the board.

Plenty of council estate pupils in my grammar school (now extinct) even Roy Hattersley no less was three years below me.
Many of us went to good Universities thanks to decent teaching during the war years, with all the restrictions that involved.

What many politicians avoid in the debate over standards is the role played by culture. People escape the state system and go private (or if they are lucky ?grammar?), primarily because they know their children will be in an environment conducive to learning. If a disruptive child is sent to a fee paying or grammar school, he or she will soon be sorted out, by expulsion if necessary, since the other parents will not tolerate class disruption. The problem for the bog standard comprehensive is how to deal with children and families who place no value on education ? until and unless discipline can be imposed, many state schools will fail to get the best out of their most able pupils.

I had the offer of going to grammar school but turned it down because the other children made fun of the only other one who got the chance. It wasn't very mature and the only reason my mother allowed it was because she was strongly assured by the head of my local secondary school that discipline and support were at the top of their agenda. He lied. I failed to achieve my potential. It’s a regret I'm still learning to overcome nearly 30 years later.

I'm going to sit on the fence with this one. For now, I think, there is a place for grammar schools as some children still need what they provide, but the discipline and attitude provided by the best must be driven home in secondary schools. This may require some fierce action on the part of government to whip teachers, children, and parents into shape. This is a collective failure but collective success can be achieved if the will is there.

If we look the what America achieved with the Apollo project, and how the Tiger economies of Asia went from agrarian to high technology societies within a generation, I think, this may help provide some sense of what can be done with proper focus and support. Education is vital to national security, wellbeing, and the foundation of industrial and creative success. Why should we allow petty squabbles get in the way of such a grand prize?

I strongly believe Gordon Brown is right to prioritise education, and if the Conservatives and liberals can assist with a supportive and flexible attitude, Gordon Brown may not just be able to create a government of "all the talents" but we may see a parliament of "all the talents emerge". After generations of factional infighting and feeling like governments exist solely to thwart the aspirations of British citizens, a change of attitude could usher in a new renaissance.

The reason new Grammar Schools don't work is when parents suddenly realise that 80% of them will have their children going to the Secondary Modern.

So far the grammar school debate has been dominated by those saying 'I had the chance to go to grammar school. It did me a power of good. We should therefore restore grammar schools'. I would like to put a neglected point of view, that of someone who failed the 11+, went to a secondary modern school and considers that the experience did him no good whatsoever. The corollary of a grammar school in every town is several secondary moderns in every town. And this is not such an appealing prospect for the 80% of us who are likely to go to them. But wait, the proponents of grammar schools say, we don't want old secondary moderns, but new fangled ones with parity of esteem with grammar schools. But wasn't that what the 1944 act was supposed to deliver, but patently didn't?

I might have more respect for the pro-grammar argument if it attempted to address how a return to bi or tri-partite secondary education would improve the lot of *all* children. But this is a point that pro-grammar advocates have been strangely silent on. Selection has a serious image problem, and until you turn your concern to the educational provision for the 80% who will never see the inside of a grammar school, the call for the restoration of grammars will just sound like the baying of reactionaries for a time that we are well rid of.

I had assumed that the purpose of schools was to provide education. The fact that a particular type of school is, or is not, being successful in increasing "social mobility" is not part of this purpose; it is, if anything, merely an unintended consequence and is related to many factors other than the type or quality of the school. The success of a school ought to be measured in the academic achievements of its pupils.

If the grammar, spelling and punctuation in this thread has not outlined why we need a sensible discussion about improving educational standards, I do not know what will...

My son "passed his 11+" last year and gained a place at our local grammar school. In doing so, he's gained all the opporunities to excel with his education that would otherwise have been denied to him unless we'd gone private. I'm grateful for that, because going private would probably have been beyond our means.

That's not a slight on our local comprehensive. His elder sister went there, and it pretty much delivered all it promised.

Education should be about the child, not about equality or social mobility. The way I see it, it's not just about the nature of the school, the facilities, the calibre of teaching, but also about the environment and the child's peer group. The greatest advantage a grammar offers, insofar as I can see, is everybody is there because they stretched themselves to attain the selection requirements. Everybody there worked to get themselves there. Not true of a comprehensive or any other kind of all-inclusive system.

In any case, listening to Old Etonians harp on about the evils of selection and how it fails to better society puts a very bitter taste in my mouth. What they neglect to acknowledge is that the money that bought them their education is the most exclusive selector of them all.

The most unfair aspect of the whole process isn't the 11+ (which has been replaced by entrance exams for the schools themselves, so actually is a misnomer to talk about anyway), is the Russian Roulette way that you have to apply to a school. These days you don't sit your 11+ by default, but actually have to apply to sit the selection exams.

The selective schools are included in the list of preferences that you submit to the local education authority. You list your preferences in order. And it was made very clear to us that if we didn't put our (over subscribed) local comprehensive at the top of our preferences in favour of putting the grammar school first, then our son wouldn't get a place at the comp if he failed his selection exams.

On the other hand, it was also made very clear that if we didn't put the (also over subscribed) grammar at the top of his preferences, then even if he passed the selection exams with flying colours, he'd not be offered a place.

So it was a "gamble everything" decision to apply to the grammar. If the lad had failed, he could have ended up anywhere, but certainly not the local comp that would have been our clear second choice. That would have been a disaster for him.

What this application process really meant, however, was that you'd only risk putting your child forward for selection if you were absolutely certain he could pass, or had the financial means to ensure failing wouldn't be a complete disaster.

THAT is the unfair thing about selection. That risk would have put off hundreds of parents from even trying in our area last year. How many of those kids that would have excelled in a grammar school environment never even got the chance because of the risks involved in trying for it?

Cameron has completely isolated the cockpit of the Tory Party from the public...it is like a space capsule full of Old Etonians jettisoning overboard anyone who cannot sing Carmen Etonense.

They are getting ever more distant from the everyday lives of millions of voters, as Cameron sees himself as Blair's understudy preening himself for Hollywood glitz.

Politics is treating voters as extras in a movie, with walk-on parts in scripted interactions with the political class. It is getting like Edwardian England with the Bullingdon Boys strutting their stuff and braying about those Northern Grammar Schoolboys. just as they did at Oxford......remember Nick ?

It did not take long for Cameron's social elitism to emerge; at least we now know what the Tories think the 21st Century looks like......a bit like the 18th

Politicians failed to implement the provisions of the 1944 Education Act which meant that the third 'technical' stream was not established.

IMHO, that has done colossal damage to England's future prospects.

Given the above, it can be seen that politicians patently cannot be trusted with something as crucial as education.

In reality, education is a highly personal service, just about as far from a State monopoly as you could imagine.

So, the best service that a Government could do is to hand over the responsibility for childrens education to the people themselves.

Let families take responsibility (or not, that is their choice) for their chidrens education and deploy all the modern educational tools and the power of the market to find an optimal result.

'Education' is not the problem, politicians and the 'educational establishment' are.

Good one Brady! Cameron needs to learn that coming up with rewording of Labour's policies is no future for the Conservative Party. This is the third mistake by Cameron after (Hug a Hoody), policy of late. What and who is or are these stupid idiots that are proposing a policy to destroy our beloved Grammar Schools? Or is it Cameron's idea?

Give us a break Cameron, cause your ideas are pushing the Conservatives into deeper waters.

Go back to your Eton junk, cause your ideas are for the past tense, not our future or the Conservative Party.

Grammar schools have always been the envy of all well educated labour supporters.And they still wish that the present system would stand.Classes are deliberately kept to a minimum.The recent documentary on Wells School versus Preston Manor was a revelation to the private school pupils.They were shattered to find classes overcrowded, and the shouting at teachers would never have been allowed at Wells.The respective heads were also a revelation.Give me grammar schools everytime.

I am a parent and I know what I want for my children. I want for them a decent education that will allow them to have a successful career and a happy life. Grammar School, Comprehensive School, and Too-too-roo School... what is the difference. Aren't we getting carried away with simple labels? Give me teachers adequately prepared to teach, proper facilities, and a decent amount of resources and I will give you the schools for the future without any gimmicks.

I'm so confused.
Vote Blair get Brown, Vote Cameron get Blair.

As someone who went to a Grammar School in Graham Bradys constituency I have mixed views on this subject matter. The year I sat my 11+ was one of the few years that an actual score was given to students sitting the exam and the difference that a handful of marks could make the later life of a 11 year old child was extreme. I feel lucky to have had the chance to attend a Grammar School although I would say that this was down to the Teachers who took pride in the school and the smaller class sizes rather than any additional facilities (not every Grammar School has a rifle range!). It did lead to a certain amount of guilt on my behalf that school friends who might have just answered one or two questions incorrectly compared to myself did not get this opportunity. As for 'streaming' within the Grammar schools, well I can speak from my own experience that my own school took no notice of the 11+ once you were there. In most subjects you were again seperated out in terms of ability and taught in different groups. I feel that is was this that was missing from the local secondary modern school which seemed to have alot less discipline and larger class sizes and the pupils clearly suffered from the lack of resources.

I would not hold Brady up as any kind of hero for making his stand, as one of the few Conservative MP's in Manchester (or even the North West) his local reputation lives or dies on his stance to Grammar Schools. Nick makes the comment that Brady is seen as the MP for Altrincham Grammar which I found particularly apt, not a communication is received in his constituency without mention to this school, it seems almost to be overcompensating for not having the Eton education of his former colleagues on in the shadow cabinet.

The problem with Mr Cameron's 'Grammar Schools debate' is that he starts from the very wrong headed assumption that the reason people used to get selected to attend one, instead of a Comprehensive or (further back) a Secondary Modern school, was that they were simultaneously 'brighter' and socially advantaged. Not true. They were selected because they were thought likely to benefit from exposure to the style of teaching and learning commonly found at a Grammar, and likely to thrive in it.

By contrast, Mr Cameron, people get selected for Eton because their parents have lots of money and the connections to swing a place.

Just because the choice of your own education relied upon notions of advantage, it is wrong to believe that is the case for Grammar Schools.

Geoffrey Brooking is correct. The party must change.
My question is - should it change into New Labour?

Nick, could you please explain to me why this has been such a big issue? The debate is between people in the Conservative party who think either

a) grammar schools do not benefit people but keeping the status quo is better than the upheavel of changing the schooling system in the handful of areas that have a grammar system

or

b)grammar school do benefit but not enough to justify the upheavel of bringing them back.

The Labour party tends to agree with a) but no one really cares very much as the status quo is generally accepted.
Whilst this non argument (which I repeat only effects a handful of local authorities) has been raging on ´óÏó´«Ã½ bulletins Wales has been having a major political shift. The Conservatives were on the verge of re-entering government for the first time since 1997. Plaid were about to have a firstminister and the liberal democrats proved to be in a decline both electorally and idealogically which will probably be mirrored in the next general election. Why was this not reported?
I understand that you are based in London but comparing the importance of the two stories I can not help but be disgusted with the meagre coverage that the Welsh Election and its outcomes received.

Dear Tomos,

I wholeheartedly agree with your blog and despair of the lack of ´óÏó´«Ã½ coverage given to UK issues, issues involving those of us living in the UK but outwith Ingerland.

I'd prefer to know what things were going on in Wales and Northern Ireland that could be adopted here to make life better, aboloshing prescription charges for example. I'm sick fed up with being forcefed 'news' on schools, health, London congestion charges and the forthcoming smoking ban... none of which apply to us.

I'm sorry I have no pearls of wisdom about the Lib Dems in Wales but here in Scotland the word is they haven't entered into coalition with the SNP because Ming the Inept fancies coalition at Westminster with Pa Broon after the next, painful for Labour, UK election. Great for the vanity our two most notable political exports but it sort of stuffs stable government for us Scots for the next four years.

Key point is this, it's about time the ´óÏó´«Ã½ realised that Celts might be more interested in each other, and their own countries, than Ingerland and gave us a comprehensive picture of what is going on in these islands, not simply the parochial concerns of the SE of Ingerland.

Slainthe.

We should only have one type of school - and it should allow streaming to take place. No religious schools either, unless privately funded.

Politicians are always meddling with the education system, and it still has shades of the class system, something not found in a lot of other countries.

Get pupils streamed into classes depending on their ability, not who their parents are.

What is this 'row' about exactly?

Surely the only 'row' anybody should be having is about getting a better education system for all.

how does getting a better education system for all depend on ring fencing one area of it or another?

Cildren are different and parents aspirations are different and I don't remember growing up in a climate of such ridiculous envy about the treatment of some versus others but both parties now seem intenton returning us to the politics of envy which took the UK to the IMF for an emergency loan in the 1970's.

Have people forgotten that this country was bankrupt then, largely as a result of faction fighting and idealogical pap.

Look around and see that the French and Germans both voted for parties who dumped the 35 hour week and effectively said 'get back to work'

Listen and learn is my message here rather than the endless navel gazing which has accompanied the final years of the Blair experiment. He was a failure and it needs sorting but not with divisive debates about the education ssytem which is there to improve stndards for all.

There is a real need to remake conservatism, particularly if they want to get elected. Cameron knows that, and Willets is one of the more old-school Tories (i.e. not a 19th century liberal individualist) interested in a pragmatic approach. Cameron is, therefore, quite keen to pick a fight with the thatcherite wing of the party. This isn't a Tony Blair "clause 4" moment, but it's not a million miles off. If this represents a real switch back to conservativism as it used to be, rather than a clever PR exercise, then British politics will be a much better place.

You don't need to remake Conservatism Dave. It's called New Sleaze.

And if Cameron's mob copies Bliar, they will simply deplore everything the Govt does and walk into power. Most people just don't remember that GB was the only Minister with any meanigful plans in 1997. The rest just rode the well deserved wave of anti Toryism

Don't you just hate it when you see typos, or should that be spelling errors, in the stuff you post. Never mind. Apologies for that Tomos.

David, I am amazed that you still consider Conservatives to be a 'national' party in the British sense. They ain't and until they make significant inroads in Scotland and Wales you had better get used to Nulab/Libdem government at Westminster.

Such is life. I feel for you and the democratic deficit you appear to have inherited from us Scots. Never mind; look on the bright side, if you are as lucky as us, it will only take you 290 years or so to redress the balance.

Slainthe.

With reference to Anthony North's post earlier (No 27):

The problem with the grammar school debate is that the concept of the grammar school no longer exists. The schools which, today, call themselves grammar schools are too elitist and muddy the water.
A 'grammar school' was an excellent opportunity for the most academically competent of ALL communities, with every child put forward for consideration.
Such schools I would completely agree with, but we have no such schools today. Basically, grammar schools are too thin on the ground to qualify.

In areas where there are just the odd isolated grammar school, this may be true. In areas of the country where the old selective system is still thriving, it's not true - such as Kent (where there are 45 grammar schools).

More generally, Cameron and Willetts couch their argument in terms of "ensuring a better education for everyone", and then make the fallacious leap to saying that this has to happen in a single uniform type of school. Everyone is different, and the dogma that this is not true has been the ruination of our education system. Graham Brady produced impressive evidence that shows the selective system actually benefits everyone.

Never voted cons but Robinsons review was a reall good 'spittage image' item. Was it news -no. The various news media are to report the news, not make it - embelish it and most certainly not parody it.