New grammar school places work only for the advantage of the "fortunate few"

In July 2016, when she became Prime Minister, Theresa May delivered her “Burning Injustices” speech. She pledged to make Britain a country that works for everyone. She spoke directly to the “just managing” and said “When it comes to opportunity, we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few.”

Later that year, the Prime Minister set out her plans for “schools that work for everyone”. She announced a consultation to look at the expansion and creation of new selective schools. Allowing new grammar schools would have meant overturning a law brought in by New Labour in 1998 – and the plan was abandoned when May lost her Commons majority. However, since then, the Government has quietly continued the expansion of existing grammar schools. 2,700 new places were created last year. Now this week, the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb, has announced a further £50m fund to allow grammar schools to create 3,000 new places in the next three years. To bid for the cash, schools must “set out how they will recruit disadvantaged children”. For example, they might use “measures such as quotas, or changing the catchment area”.

When May first spoke about these plans she echoed her “burning injustices” speech: “This government is dedicated to making Britain a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.” Educationalists from across the political spectrum were quick to point out the inconsistency between not wanting to favour “the privileged few” and a policy statement largely dedicated to exactly that: enhancing the education opportunities of the “few” who by a combination of geographical proximity, intensive tutoring, a particular type of cognitive ability, and perhaps now “quotas” will be able to get into a grammar school.

The Prime Minister’s 2016 statement also said that “merit, not background” should be the factor in how far pupils progress. It is indeed the term “merit” that is at the heart of the grammar school debate. Because the renewed focus on the expansion of grammar schools which admit only the “cognitively able” somehow implies that these pupils “merit” a better education than other pupils. If there is a poorly performing local comprehensive, let’s say with poor behaviour policies that are impeding learning for everyone, why should the cognitively-able be “creamed off” and offered a better chance than everyone else? Wouldn’t it make as much sense to create a £50m fund to allow the least cognitively-able to go off to a quiet dedicated environment fully focused on their learning needs? Why not? Are they not of equal merit and equal moral worth?

Nick Gibb and other grammar school proponents point out how popular selective schools are with parents. But isn’t the right policy response therefore to look at what they do so well and make that as widely available as possible? Perhaps to all children regardless of academic ability?

Let’s have a look at what makes grammar schools popular.

Firstly, grammars tend to focus on a small set of traditional academic subjects: English and maths, geography and history, the sciences, languages, art and drama. They teach them rigorously, with extensive content, and with high expectations around what the children will learn and retain. When schools focus on interesting content, adopt good teaching methods, and make extensive use of now well-understood knowledge retention techniques it should come as no surprise that the vast majority of children are capable of extensive learning and knowledge retention. This is clearly something for the many, not just for the few.

Secondly, grammar schools have high expectations around good behaviour. Almost all parents despair when children bring home stories of disruption in the classroom. They don’t like their children seeing rude or aggressive behaviour from other children. They don’t like to think of the disruption to learning if teachers are having to spend too much of their time managing behaviour. The Government should therefore be focusing its policy efforts on improving behaviour in all schools, not on creaming off a lucky few to be taught elsewhere.

In fact, an area that could well have done with the £50m funding injection is that of “Alternative Provision” where pupils go who have been excluded or otherwise do not fit into mainstream schools. According to a report by the IPPR “Excluded children are: twice as likely to be in the care of the state, four times more likely to have grown up in poverty, seven times more likely to have a special educational need and 10 times more likely to suffer recognised mental health problems.” If the Government wants to alleviate “burning injustices”, cash injections and better interventions into this area would have greater benefits – and would be better targeted at those who need it the most.

I met a father a while back who told me that while his older daughter was happy at the very good local comprehensive, he was buying tutoring for his younger daughter to help her get into the local grammar school. Why? She wanted to go because all her friends were going. Would she get in without tutoring? Not a chance – was his assessment. Did he want to split his daughters up? No, it hurt to do so – but he could not justify preventing his younger daughter from doing something that all her friends were doing. Her class would not be much fun with all of them gone. Did he think his younger daughter deserved a better education than his older daughter? No parent would – but isn’t that what the existence of grammar schools implies?

Finally, grammar schools have a strong focus on passing on our cultural heritage – the great works and thoughts of those who have gone before. The socialist writer, Robert Tressell, wrote, in The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist, ‘… What we call civilization – the accumulation of knowledge which has come down to us from our forefathers – is the fruit of thousands of years of human thought and toil. It is not the result of the labour of the ancestors of any separate class of people who exist today, and therefore it is by right the common heritage of all. Every little child that is born into the world, no matter whether he is clever or dull, whether he is physically perfect or lame, or blind; no matter how much he may excel or fall short of his fellows in other respects, in one thing at least he is their equal – he is one of the heirs of all the ages that have gone before.’

Almost every one of us has the capacity to know and to love a very great deal more than we currently do. And every one of us has equal “merit” when it comes to being given the best start in life that our country can provide. So where Conservative education policy is focused on the few – it should be on those who need it the most. That is what many of us Conservatives thought the “burning injustices” focus would be all about. And then more broadly, Conservatives must continue to focus on raising standards and expectations for all our children, in all our schools. After all, Conservatives are the great keepers of traditions, the conservers of our common heritage. And this will be better cared for, and more intact when handed on down to those not yet born, if it is shared and loved by all.