Grammar Schools: Schools that work for everyone? Briefings

Good evening. I am glad to see what you past the selected tests, not

everybody could get in! You would imagine that the members of the

panel, speaking, some going outside to jeer, calling them failures! We

are always accused of doing that. It is done incessantly by the opponents

of selection by ability. The principle of that debate, pretending

we do not have selection already, by routes. That route... Different

through the wealth of parents, enabling them to move to catchment

areas, houses 20% higher in price than average. And, politely, perhaps

pretending to her feet religion they do not believe in, gaining entry to

schools that are comprehensive. This is a particular trek adopted by

members of the radical left. Pretending to believe in

comprehensive education, but actually believe, and the best

example is the Roman school in London. Favoured by the Tony Blair

family. As comprehensive as number ten Downing St an inner city

terraced house. These points need to be made. If you study the activities

of the radical left, one finds they either in boroughs of London,

congregate becoming Roman Catholics. That is the solution to the problem.

I am not here to supporting anybody Theresa May, and indeed I take the

view that the Conservative Party has never taken up any cause that it

does not betray in the end. We need at least 1500 extra grammar

schools in England and I think the Scots could be a long, demanding

about a new ones. The revulsion after the collapse of

East Germany led to the creation and what had been the German democratic

republic of new numbers of grammar schools, extremely successful. One

of them I have visited. I had the pleasure of attending the English

class, children and doctors educated side-by-side. Stand up higher than

this country. That is my point. I am not actually in favour of grammar

schools because they increased social mobility. I am in favour of

them because they are good. Doing what education is posted. --

supposed to do. Making sure that the talents of the children of this

country, wherever they grow up, however rich, any of those things,

the talents of those children put first, made the greatest possible

use of. And brought to the absolute perfection by the education system.

That is what I want to have. But before we get involved in the

tedious debate about the problems of the tiny rump of grammar schools,

almost all of them in wealthy areas... Some statistical analysis.

The problem, sending children to these schools, most of the grammar

schools in poor areas closed by Labour councils. I should point this

out, I think it was incorrectly stated by the professional, closed

by an Education Secretary who as far as I know was a member of the

Conservative Party between 70-74. Closed more than any Labour

government. Bipartisan closure. Statistics show the best

comprehensives, for the children of the wealthy. 43$ of pupils, from the

wealthiest 20%. A large premium on house prices in catchment areas.

Huge numbers of children, twice as many. Travelling across local

authority boundaries. The pressure on them, enormous. If you had the

national system reasonably distributed that would be different.

Statistics... Again, reports from 1954, 64.6% of pupils from working

class homes. I do not think any of you could get a good comprehensive

school that has anything approaching that now. This was confirmed, and

was also found that apart from unschooled workers, the success of

getting two good A levels in working class pupils, equal to the

professional classes. Fantastically effective, getting children from

poor, working class background to the realisition of talents. It also

seems to be sad, and this really needs to be stated. Such a

grievance. 1938-9, Private school pupils have 62% of places at

university. 1958, after some years of grammar schools being free to

everybody. Private school share, 53%. Falling to 45%. Falling so

fast, it was said that public schools, if they survived, would

have to educate and it is the greatest achievement

of the socialism in this country, the century, to create and boost and

strengthen private education. I just want to finish with one small thing.

It is important I do. You would be sorry if I do not. I am going to

read out what Eric James, our former headmaster said, when he was trying

to defend grammar schools. If I were a high Tory Instead of a socialist,

that barely exists, who really believes and privilege, one of the

first things I would do would be to get rid of the grammar schools.

This is the sort of made me a scenario, even when people are used

to speaking. Half of you looking disappointed. You have got half an

hour to write a speech. And you follow Peter. I am going to do my

best. It has already been mentioned that tomorrow the Conservatives are

publishing the manifesto. The selection, shaped about Brexit, but

whatever they say about education and schools, it is as important for

this country as the European question. We do not know what they

are going to say but they are going to move the clock back. Once again,

the Conservative dominated government if they win, reshaping

the educational landscape. It is going to be a disaster. Moving us

back to the system that has been tried and failed. It is not going to

look the same as the period after 1945 but could be remarkably

similar. The evidence, we heard it in the opening, excellent opening.

All clear. I would question Peter's figures. We cannot get your surveys

and question them. I don't this 64%. Anybody can Google that. We are both

on Twitter. You said I was making that up. You have got millions of

followers, I have got some devoted followers. Feminists. I'll take

that. We know two things. The evidence from 45-60s. It was largely

for the affluent, professional families. Yes, some working class

young people. Lower middle class people. That narrative is so well

known in society. And you knew, that is all that you hear about. But do

we ever hear about the narrative of those sent to the secondary. We do

not. I had interesting figures, between 45-76, 20 million plus

children, told at the age of 11 they have failed. We can't talk about

statistics, numbers, if I had more time to prepare I would have brought

more. But we can talk about human beings, I have got two children, you

make a joke about selection, meeting, but I think ten,

11-year-olds, for particularly when they come from a background without

no homes with books, confidence, to be told they are an educational

failure before adolescence, it is a disaster. Parliament, I think. The

honourable member for the Daily Mail wishes to speak. I am speaking. I

think it is a disaster. We number of the post war period. If we look at

Buckinghamshire, Kent, ten these have kept the same system that we

had in the post-war period and we do not have enough about that either,

systems cleaved down the middle, with social class. Buckinghamshire,

also divided on ethical grounds. It is not a system for social cohesion,

not a system for the progress of the majority. For the progress of the

majority. Absolutely clear, when you have grammars, only 3% of children

on free school music it to grammars, and private primaries. Yes, those do

marginally better on the GCSE grades, than if he had gone to a

good comprehensive. But looked at the impact of grammars, on the

schools surrounding that. I got to retreat teachers, keep the morale of

the school. You do not have those high achieving, highly motivated. It

is just a completely different system. It does not since.

It's about social background, subject to tutoring, in Birmingham

parents paid for chosen to take the 11 plus, we don't know if they would

succeed. It harms disadvantaged children and surrounding schools.

And parents, even those who succeed, it creates a kind of anxiety around

the whole process which, I think, is antithetical to education.

Antithetical to human growth development on clause. Let's talk

about education in those terms rather than, oh no, one minute,

help! A footy debris two minute. -- I thought you gave me two minute. So

what do we know? As our opening Speaker said, we know that Europe

and beyond is moving towards a nonselective system and they are

doing well. We talk about Finland. Finland has a system like ours, then

moved conference of education, it is not of the league table. We also

know it has provided opportunity for millions. This is about Oxford and

Cambridge, and Peter proved that of the callow way it is claimed, the

Paolo Dybala going to Oxford and Cambridge? The Tim Abraham a people

are going to how many people are going on to

learn and feel that their education is beginning and not that they felt

that. The Conservative Party agrees with. Before Theresa May, two of

them are advisers decided this was a good idea: Michael Gove and David

Cameron on my people generally politically, they actually saw that

the answer was good schools for all. I'm sorry to see that part of them

go. We know it is better for social cohesion. Of course, comprehensive

education is to be well funded, with good teachers and leadership, it

needs a modern approach to the curriculum, and London is a good

example of what is well supported, collaborative comprehensive candy. I

expedition, fantastically important. This policy was written on the back

of a cafe and void. Theresa May -- cafe Embolo. Theresa May is a

stubborn woman and is holding onto it. Everyone is against it,

including the head of education and UCL, every teaching unions head

teachers around the country. No one wants it except Peter Hitchens,

Theresa May... And I don't mean to be rude to the other speakers

because they wanted to. I think this is a quick fix, instead of the hard

slog that we need to make our schools good for everyone. I do not

deny that it is a huge challenge. Please, please, don't support this

and don't vote for a government that wants to bring it in.

We've heard apparently that everyone hates grammar schools, but May is

introducing grammar schools because she knows that actually really

popular with parents. Why are they popular? The idea conjures up a

image of children in need uniforms, working hard in a disciplined,

organised environment. With the teacher as a figure of authority and

respect. Interestingly, the biggest fans of grammar schools are ethnic

minorities. At some 90% of pupils are drawn from ethnic Nazis.

King at -- -- are drawn from ethnic minorities. The value discipline and

aspiration. By not interested an ideological educational war. They

want their chosen to succeed. It is clear they great success with

grammar school. And not. Ransom. This debate is at -- not with

comprehensive. This debate is about two different educational teaching

method. I'm not a teacher, I'm not an educationalist. I did, however,

write it think tank report on white black Caribbean and white

working-class boys fail. I spent a year interviewing these boys, their

parents, going into schools, talking to teachers and headteachers.

Parents and children is talked about violent schools, and

teaching methods that fail to teach the basic. Most boys are interviewed

were barely literate. They are not alone. A third of boys on free

school meals at the age of 14 have a reading age of below 11. According

to the Guardian, 20% of the adult population is functionally

illiterate and one third cannot add up to three figure numbers. How such

a large proportion of our poorest pupils passed the 11 years of state

education and still don't have the basics? The answer can be found in

the progressive methods which have dominated our state schools for

decades. An outlook which has run out this figure, -- announces

bigger, and dismisses traditional teaching as futile, and refuses to

challenge children with anything that might bore the more proved

irrelevant. The parents I interviewed were bitter that they

had no say on how their children were taught. They laid the blame for

their children's poor education and squarely on the sort of ditzy

methods which they complained about. Far from being the motor for social

mobility as grammar schools have proved to be, our state school

system pointed out one former head of Ofsted is entered entrenching

deprivation and social immobility. Another described the attainment gap

between people and secondary schools as, quote, and appalling injustice,

and inexcusable waste of potential and an approach to us all. Why I

believe traditional is better than progressive is simple. One works,

the other does not. As I have seen with South London gang that I

offended seven years ago LAUGHTER I know, it's unlikely but I did. When

I first met these boys they were bright, they were ambitious, they

really wanted to succeed. At 15, they wanted to join a golf club and

live in the suburbs. The same ambition as most of our sons have.

LAUGHTER But the really sad thing about this

is no one made them sit down and apply themselves. It meant they

never learned to turn a burst of enthusiasm into the day to day grind

that bring success, as we know. That failing with a serious consequence

for them and society. Barely able to read, they dropped out of school at

14. As one said to me, you lot graduate from school to university,

we go from school to prison. It actually does not have to be like

that. I have visited charter schools in New York and a free school here

in Brent, who proudly employ those traditional methods of education we

associate with grammar schools. On poor inner-city children. In the

free school, an 11-year-old Iranian boy told me he had learnt the whole

of the ancient Mariner by heart. He began to recite it with gusto. He

did not seem particularly academic to me, but learning that poem... Has

taught him application, self-discipline and confidence.

These are values people equate with the middle classes and grammar

schools but they don't have to be. They can be learned from anyone,

anywhere. But they need an educational establishment convinced

of their importance. The tragedy is too many components are failing to

teach him and for purely ideological reason. The argument against grammar

schools is too many lose out for the future succeed. How is that any

different from the present? Grammar schools are selected by intellectual

ability, the top 500 performing a comp offensive, selected by those

who can afford to pay for a house close to them as we were discussing.

-- performing comprehensives. We have half as many peoples on free

school meals as a Connor Randall, 9% of pupils are on free school meals

in the top 500 comprehensive. Selection is alive and thriving in

the state sector, by money rather than academic ability. I believe

made's version of grammar schools is addressing a lot of the problems

that people have of them. May said that she will force grammar school

to dig a quota of children on free school meals, and allow late

developers to take exams at 14 and 16. At least with her proposals,

some bright children from a poor background might get a chance at a

decent education. At the moment, too many gifted children are neglected

by their schools or treated with suspicion for fear, as one teacher

said, of being deleted. -- elitist. We're nearly there. People like

grammar schools because they offer traditional forms of teaching, and

these succeed when education progressive style fail. But as a

poor kids harbour. There -- harbour. They can't employee tutors. There

was are a good idea but an even better idea is if we make grammar

schools work for everyone. That is if we take their traditional methods

that have been so successful in grammar schools, and use them in all

schools and in all abilities of children. That way, we could... Have

one last line. That way we would make sure that all schools provided,

as one child wrote on a notice board in Harlem, that education be a

journey to one of the best lives out there.

I've only know you the ten years and I got your name on. I have a speech

written but my last Speaker made me so cross and angry that are now

going to change my speech. What we got there was a right-wing rant

about the standards of education in country, completely un-evidenced on

evidence based on one or two free schools and charter schools add a

few interviews with a black boy ten years ago. We got a rant. Now, now I

and speaking now. We got a rant about poor standards, progressive

education and we slating of the schools in our country. It is not

true. Order. I need to make a point of order. I do not think speakers

should... Thank you. Fair comment. I feel personally attacked by the

betrayal of teachers and schools by the previous Speaker. I think it was

disgraceful. What about the betrayal of young people? Educational

standards are rising and compliance of schools would have a force for

both rising of education standards. What those speakers have

the few not the many. They said that grammar schools only force were

working-class children to succeed. I know about this because my daughter

was ten, we moved from Yorkshire to Kingston upon Thames. At getting her

new school, aged ten, going to primary school in Kingston. We went

to the school and came back. I was met by two other mothers, very nice,

talking about school. They said, right, should be taking her 11 plus

test in 10-month Mtime. These are the teachers and you've got to go

and get a tutor for the test. If money is a problem, weekend a few

her books, her work second hand. Needless to say, I refused the

offer. Opponents of grammar schools know coaching is a problem. Grammar

schools promoting social mobility. Devising tests that cannot be

coached for. The fact that Buckinghamshire decided they have a

new test, more susceptible to coaching, and Kent, last week, a

report found the 11 test was a loaded dice. No evidence. No

evidence that grammar schools provide... A route for poor children

to get better life chances. The proportion, less than 3%. 7% of poor

children achieve well, level five, but less than two and a half percent

get to the grammar schools. It is not selection by ability, but the

ability to pay. In Kent... Children from low income families, almost all

educated in school, but the effects do not stop at the end of school. In

Kent, the average hourly wage difference is ?4 between most and

less. No evidence that grammar schools have been a vehicle for

social mobility. Pitiful 0.3% of grammar schools pupills from post

war class. It was a rapid increase, in changes from the labour market.

The new welfare state needs more teachers, technicians nurses. And

the two proponents of the grammar schools system have argued to

selection the back door. Postcode lottery. Get your house in the right

area. If they are serious about that, they should argue for the

expansion of catchment areas, banding system, and returning the

authority to force a level playing field. Theresa May wants to get

around these objections, with a load of old welly. Accusing the grammar

schools of dogma. Look in the mirror! She also seeks to sweeten

the pill, by saying portions of poor children in grammar schools. And

some in the party have said that is social engineering. If we really

want to achieve social mobility, we should do one thing. Fight child

poverty. So fewer pupils, already, are there, not arriving behind. At

the age of 11, when the test is taken, it is a gap of almost 60%.

Years of research have shown children do best in mixed intakes.

Intakes, cultures. Different children do not make linear

progress. Those fallen behind can transform. But the worst thing that

any education system can do, tell a child, age 11, not one bit of a

place at a prestigious school. And ambitions must be prescribed, on the

failure of one day to pass at its. Those without the means to buy

coaching. Jesus! Is it too late to respect the

picket? As the excellent introduction made clear, grammar

schools. In England are emphatically not vengeance of social mobility.

Simply put, too few pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds attend

grammar schools. But when disadvantaged pupils do attend

grammar schools, a key fact, indisputable, ten percentage points

higher than they would in the comprehensive system. High achieving

pupils, age 11, GCSE, achieving ten percentage points higher than if

they had stayed in the comprehensive system. We know that disadvantaged

pupils are less likely to attend grammar schools. Those points

already raised. Falling behind by 11. Less likely to be privately

tutored. But that is not just an issue of equal access. One of the

arguments, already being made, the negative effect of the two tier

system. Privileges for the academic elite, abandoning the rest. And

evidence to support this comes from the police where grammar schools

operate. But crucially, selective areas... Buckinghamshire, Kent,

Lincolnshire, do not represent the most areas. Deprived disadvantaged

pupils make up our larger share. Disadvantaged pupils perform less

well when a minority. This could be the case in those are from ancient

counties, with or without grammar schools. I would argue against

academic selection in places like Kent, Surrey. Not adding value. Not

benefiting the middle class. The comprehensive system takes children

of all abilities from a particular place. Educating them together in

one school. That is the basic premise. One size, fits all

approach. Evidently, we have some fundamental structural problems.

Ongoing. Lasting many generations with the comprehensive system. It is

grounded in place, the tendency to that two tier effect. Good schools

in prosperous areas, bad schools, less prosperous areas. The bottom

25% of the most deprived authorities. All of them have a

comprehensive education system. Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford,

Middlesbrough, Hull. All across the north. Sandwell. Nottinghamshire in

the Midlands. Many have been failing for a long time. Long before

austerity measures. Found despite significant investment from Labour.

Also among the 20 places identified by the Sutton Trust as having high

levels of missing talent. Pupils who score in the top 10%

nationally at age 11. But not achieving GCSES. Simply go missing.

London, as has been mentioned, the good educational success story.

Other places can learn from. But one thing is different to other parts of

the country, economically, socially, poverty. A family in temporary

accommodation can live next door to a family that owned ?1 million

house. And the children of those two families can attend the same school.

This is not the social and economic mix found elsewhere. These debates,

in favour of grammar schools, tend to be dominated by the Metropolitan,

liberal elite. Tend to view the system through London's experience.

If you take a trip to those places, it is different. Gains can be

achieved, using the system we already have. Heart of the solution,

fairer funding. The teaching premium to attract the best talent. But this

is not sufficient to get the level of transformational change that is

needed shop a new model required. The most disadvantaged areas need

excellence to the average. Ever more the case, after the impact of

Brexit, globalisation, the widening disparity of the economy. I have

argued that grammar schools can play a vital role, as part of a system,

transformation. Acting as a catalyst for long-term cultural change.

Providing excellence, influencing practice at other institutions,

secondary and primary. Across the different types of schools,

academic, technical, creative. Not a one size fits all. Insuring parity

of esteem. Not getting pupils to substandard secondaries, raising

standards at every part of the system. But this would require an

approach that ensure selection is not harmful. I have sympathy for

some of the arguments against the damaging effects. Those being

traumatised, thereafter. I want a form of academic selection in

disadvantaged areas, not enough outstanding schools. And when

attainment is consistently poor. This would require some sort of

selection system, treating children according to reports. As originally

conceived and supporting primary schools, for entrance exams, quota

system for poor children, and transitioning later developing

pupils at a later stage. Many, late developers. To sum up... Grammar

schools can under a restricted set of circumstances, I am not part of

the crazier side of the debate, but nevertheless I support some role for

grammar schools. Can deliver real social value to working-class areas

around the country. Thank you. Can everyone hear me? It is telling

that in Peter's speech, almost all the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s band East

Germany. The world has moved on. The internet has been invented.

Politicians, endorsed by grime artists. And some comprehensive

schools helped poor kids become doctors, CEOs, Guardian columnist.

It is offensive to argue this case, this debate, as if we were 45 years

ago as opposed to today. I am going to sum up the logic of the case we

heard from opponents. Basically, some parents rig the system for

admissions. We should spend the state time and effort, tell more

money, parents to play and rig the system. As opposed to an

alternative, basically acknowledging that some parents game the system,

but how about we take those millions, and help improve all of

the schools so you do not have an incentive to try to game the system.

That is a contrast between the two sides of the debate. I am good to

ask three questions. All no. Grammar School is necessary to get a

world-class system? We think not. Can we have grammar schools without

significant cost. No. And do children have a fair short of

winning this lottery? Simply, on our side. Our grammar schools necessary?

Basically opponents portrayed the schools, with no discipline,

teachers running abandon, kids waving knifes. Funnily enough, I do

not remember that being the case. But more crucially, it ignores the

context of education in this country. It has improved drastically

in the last 20 years. Six out of ten students get the GCSE benchmark. 20

years ago, it was one in five. Modest advantage children go to

universities like this one computer 20 years ago.

The idea that education is dire is awful. We need to do better, invest

in teachers, invest in leadership, extracurricular activities, business

links and between schools and the corporate world. Some might

struggle. But the solution isn't to say to someone, you are struggling,

I will send you to a grammar school. And they pulled we won't get to a

grammar school on your criteria. The solution is to give them a mental or

someone -- someone who can believe et al. I

have a story about of Hackney -- a child from Hackney. He was good at

debating and became part of the debating society. He is now going to

UCL and his mentor is in the audience. That story is around the

country. You can raise the ball's aspiration and universities in

combines of course. Any have grammar schools without social cost? Begu

Matt Machan you about Cox? They negatively affect

schools in the area. More crucially, there is a signalling a affects you

have when you say people you are a failure aged 11. Last week, a study

showed that hits you don't get into grammar schools are less likely to

apply to university, then equivalent kids in schools where there are no

grammar school. It is not difficult to understand. If you have the label

put on you at age 11 that the jobs the whole world cut off from you

because you fall into a particular box, I'm sure it will have an effect

on whether you think you should take your place in university or leading

jobs in our country, or leading apprenticeship. What about

employment? It's interesting that we have three speeches and didn't hear

what would go on in secondary moderns. We teach kids in selective

schools that you don't teach kids in secondaries moderns? In a globalised

economy web jobs will be more automated, I worry about kids that

won't get into grammar school. What if you don't well rounded, academic

education in the schools with an selective? I answer the question. Do

you know what, I'm going to say yes. I'm good. You mentioned secondary

modern. In current exam performance, someone told me I made this up, it

comes House of Commons briefing paper from this year. All right

Peter. The percentages five or more including English and maths work for

them. Secondary modern, 49%. Compliance is and private --

comprehensives, 56.7%. Grammar schools, 96%. In 50 years, they have

achieved a 7% automation in outcomes of children. Stop interrupting me.

The general point is this. No one is denying that grammar schools do

well, they have a negative effect on school dramas is no necessary

condition having a world-class education system that you have

grammar school. You get great results and also have a completely

comprehensive system, like Canada. Before the world -- if the world was

more like Canada, it would be a better place. My last point, do kids

have a fair shot at getting ink is a ready answer is no. The last

Speaker, why did the chief executive of one of the last companies fixing

of the biggest companies for the stats, admit you can't have it you'd

approved exam? Because he was one? It's his job. Parents are spilling

thousands of pounds when there is a perception you have to spend

thousands of pounds getting your kid into a grammar school, you drive

parents into destitution because they think the game is rigged. And

kids with special educational needs. They have not mentioned though. The

one 1.8% of children in school. That qualify for special needs. I have a

theory that those kids aren't going to get into grammar school. People

in this audience with siblings or children or will have siblings and

children who might have special needs. Ask yourself the question,

will they benefit from this policy? I think not. Lewis, 15 seconds. Last

point. Our country is divided. I don't think it's a good idea to

entrench a policy with who literally divide communities and not just at

school but beyond. Three questions, do we need grammar schools? And no.

Andy grammar schools come with huge costs? They do. Do most children

have a chance getting in Kosovo no. For all those reasons, vote for our

side. Thank you.