Friends of Grammar Schools

By Thomas Lowe (to listen to a recording of the debate, click here)

As Matthew d’Ancona, editor of the Spectator, said in his opening comments, the academic selection debate is had round many dinner tables in Britain. Grammar schools arouse fierce loyalties. Those opposed denounce them for creating division and failing the poorest. Those in favour praise them for their pursuit of excellence and their capacity to serve the poorest by increasing social mobility. The lack of agreement is possibly what attracted the Spectator to hold a provokingly-titled debate on the subject at the Royal Geographical Society on 23 June 2009.

The debate opened with speeches from the star-studded array of panellists. David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary and one-time candidate to be leader of the Conservative Party, was making his first major departure from the policies pursued by the Cameron leadership. Davis spoke passionately from his personal experience about the opportunities that attending a grammar school had opened up for him. He eloquently recounted his childhood, living in a run-down Victorian terrace house, brought up by a single mother. Speaking from the heart, he decried the comprehensive system for failing those with talent but lacking wealth, those with aspirations but without the means, denying them the opportunity to better themselves and escape the poverty trap. His basic premise that selection is meritocratic was well received.

Charles Clarke MP was the only panellist to have had the dubious distinction of once being Secretary of State for Education. The former public school boy gave a tub-thumping speech, with plenty of hot air expelled but very little light shone on the subject. He made claims about academic selection creating long-term divisions in society, and criticised academic selection for dividing children into sheep and goats. He used the platform to emphasise his belief, no doubt influenced by his interaction with the teaching unions during his time at Education, that it is the quality of the head-teacher and the general leadership of the school that determines the quality of the education provided.

Stephen Pollard is enjoying a glittering career and is normally well-informed and engaged with his subject material, but on this occasion perhaps did the least to promote the cause of the pro-grammar side. While he was competent enough in outlining how social mobility in Britain has declined since the abolition of grammar schools, his knowledge on the subject was shown to be slightly shallow under intense questioning. Charles Clarke took particular delight in picking up on any inconsistencies and exposing them to ruthless scrutiny. Pollard’s new book is titled ‘Ten Days That Changed the Nation’, and while he didn’t quite manage this here, his argument that selection works in many parts of Europe did add an extra dimension to his team’s case.

Simon Jenkins, a one time education researcher, made the best fist of defeating the motion. He began in time-honoured tradition by attacking the wording of the motion, explaining that the use of best was grammatically inaccurate. He then pointed out that even those in favour of the motion had to concede that grammar schools were not the best schools in Britain, an honour retained by independent schools. In humorous fashion he criticised the connection made between comprehensive education and progressive teaching methods, supporting the former while deriding the latter. Hiding behind localism, he supported the rights of parents to choose what type of education system should be provided in their local area. But he was clear in his suspicion that, if it were put to a vote, middle class parents would continue to support comprehensives as they did not want to risk their children being labelled as failures.

Graham Brady MP is a man of principle and is deeply passionate about grammar schools. Like David Davis, he experienced first-hand the benefits of selective education; he represents a constituency in the North-West that continues to select pupils at 11; and he was so disillusioned with the modern Conservative Party’s stance on selective education that he resigned from the shadow front bench in 2007 over the issue. Mr Brady has evidently done his research into education policy and is widely acknowledged as one of the most knowledgeable backbenchers on either side of the House. Replete with a battery of statistics and facts, he outlined why selective education is best for both those in grammar schools and those at secondary moderns. He had so much to say and so little time to say it that Andrew Neil, the chairman, had to bring his speech to a premature close.

Fiona Millar was the only grammar school girl to speak out against the motion. She had no qualms about boasting that she had educated her own children through the comprehensive system, though the gesture was weakened by her conspicuous failure to explain whether she lived in close proximity to one of the country’s better comprehensives. Her speech was fiery and set out to destroy various ‘myths’ about the old selective system. She relished detailing figures which showed that the number of state sector pupils admitted to Oxford or Cambridge rose after the abolition of the eleven-plus. This was rightly disputed by Stephen Pollard who noted that there had indeed been a huge rise in the number of places being offered to state pupils at Cambridge but that most of these entrants were state grammar school students. Her speech was not the most popular with the partisan audience, and when she rhetorically asked how many pupils now achieved 5 A levels (a figure in the thousands) and pointed out that only 9 students achieved this in 1959, an audience member heckled – ‘the exams were harder’ – to general laughter and applause.

The session was then thrown open to the floor, with Andrew Neil chairing proceedings with his usual combination of self-effacing one-liners and wry wit. A poll taken at the start of the night showed that over 70% of the audience supported the motion, and this numerical superiority was reflected in the questioning. Apart from momentary flashes of anger over the abolition of grammar schools, the audience brought the debate into a wider context. One teacher highlighted the problem that children with learning and behavioural disabilities create for the management of the classroom. Toby Young, the writer and journalist, was one of many audience-members to query why selection between schools was wrong, but selection within schools, through streaming or setting, was considered acceptable. The audience were almost as impressive as the panellists.

After the lengthy and well-informed debate, another vote was called. At the outset, around 15% of the audience had been non-committal on the motion. Almost all of those who were initially undecided swung against the motion and against grammar schools. As Andrew Neil said, ‘those opposing the motion have won the debate, but those in favour of the motion have the numbers.’ The National Association of Grammar Schools will no doubt agree that the next step will be to bring this debate into the public domain, to be heard and discussed at the regional and national Parliaments.

_______________

* This story has been contributed by an independent commentator and does not necessarily represent the views or position of Friends of Grammar Schools.